THE 


THE 


FISHERIES   AND  THE  MISSISSIPPI, 


DOCUMENTS  RELATING  TO  TRANSACTIONS 


AT 


THE  NEGOTIATION  OF  GHENT. 


Collected  and  Published 

BY  JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS, 

ONE   OF    THE    COMMISSIONERS    OF    THE    UNITED   STATES 
AT    THAT  NEGOTIATION- 


WASHINGTON. 

PRINTED  BY    DAVIS  AND  FORCE,    frRANKLIN's  HEAD.) 
PENNSYLVANIA  AVENUE. 

1822. 


To  facilitate  the  comparison  between  the  Original  and  Duph* 
cate  of  Mr.  RusseWs  Letter  of  nth  February,  ||-||  to  Mr. 
Monroe,  they  are  in  this  Collection  printed  in  corresponding 
pages,  with  the  variations  between  them  numbered  and  printed 
in  a  brevier  type.  The  passages  in  the  Ghent  Documents,  par 
ticularly  referred  to  in  the  subsequent  discussion,  are  enclosed 
in  brackets. 


INTRODUCTION. 


During  the  progress,  and  after  the  conclusion,  of  the  negotiation 
at  Ghent,  despatches  were  at  three  several  periods  received  by  the 
executive  government  of  the  United  States,  from  their  plenipoten 
tiaries  at  that  place.  The  documents  relating  to  the  negotiation, 
transmitted  by  the  first  and  second  of  these  occasions,  were  commu 
nicated  by  messages  from  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  Con 
gress,  and  thereby  became  generally  known  to  the  public.  They 
are  to  be  found  in  the  9th  volume  of  Wait's  State  Papers,  and  in  the 
7th  volume  of  Niles'  Register,  and  they  contain  the  correspondence 
of  the  American  mission,  as  well  with  their  own  government  as 
with  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  from  the  commencement  of  the 
negotiation  till  the  31st  of  October,  1814.  The  third  messenger 
brought  the  treaty  of  peace  itself.  The  correspondence  subsequent 
to  the  31st  of  October,  was  of  course  communicated  to  the  Senate 
with  the  treaty,  when  it  was  submitted  to  that  body  for  their  advice 
and  consent  to  its  ratification.  But  it  was  not  communicated  to 
Congress  or  made  public,  nor  was  there  at  that  time  manifested 
any  desire  to  see  it  either  by  the  House  of  Representatives  or  by 
the  nation. 

In  the  course  of  the  last  summer,  (of  1821,)  I  was  apprised  by  a 
friend,  that  rumours  very  unfavourable  to  my  reputation,  even  for 
integrity,  were  industriously  circulated  in  the  Western  Country. 
That  it  was  said  I  had  made  a  proposition  at  Ghent  to  grant  to  the 
British  the  right  to  navigate  the  Mississippi  in  return  for  the  New 
foundland  fisheries,  and  that  this  was  represented  as,  at  least,  a  high 
misdemeanor.  I  observed  that  a  proposition  to  confirm  both  these 
rights  as  they  had  stood  before  the  war,  and  as  stipulated  by  the 
treaty  of  1783,  had  been  offered  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries, 
not  by  me,  but  by  the  whole  American  mission,  every  one  of 


235163 


whom  had  subscribed  to  it.  That  the  proposal  to  make  this  of 
fer  had  been  made  to  the  mission  not  by  me,  but  by  a  citizen  of 
the  Western  Country  :  that  it  was  warranted,  and  as  I  believed,  ab 
solutely  required  by  the  instructions  to  the  mission  at  the  time 
when  the  proposal  was  made  to  the  British  commissioners,  and  that 
if  I  had  felt  and  shown  great  solicitude  at  Ghent  for  the  fisheries, 
I  did  not  expect  it  was  to  be  imputed  to  me  as  an  offence,  ei 
ther  in  my  character  of  a  servant  of  the  Union,  or  in  that  of  a  na 
tive  citizen  of  Massachusetts.  He  said  the  proposal  was  at  all 
events  to  be  so  represented,  that  it  was  charged  exclusively  upon 
me,  and  that  I  should  hear  afore  about  it  ere  long. 

On  the  16th  of  January  last,  Mr.  Floyd,  a  member  of  the  House 
of  Representatives  of  the  United  States,  submitted  to  the  House  a 
resolution  in  the  following  words  : 

11  Resolved,  That  the  President  of  the  United  States  be  requested  to  cause  to 
be  laid  before  this  House,  all  the  correspondence  which  led  to  the  treaty  of 
Ghent,  which  has  not  yet  been  made  public,  and  which,  in  his  opinion,  it  may 
not  be  improper  to  disclose." 

The  said  resolution  was  read,  and  ordered  to  lie  on  the  table 
one  day. 

The  proceedings  of  the  House  upon  it  the  next  day,  are  thus  re 
ported  in  the  National  Intelligencer  of  the  18th  of  January. 

Thursday,  January  17th,  1822. 
HOUSE    OF    REPRESENTATIVES. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Floyd,  the  House  proceeded  to  the  considera 
tion  of  the  resolution  offered  by  him  yesterday,  requesting  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States  "  all  the  correspondence  which  led 
to  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  which  has  not  yet  been  made  public,  and 
which,  in  his  opinion,  it  may  not  be  improper  to  disclose." 

Mr.  Floyd  remarked  that,  as  peace  was  now  restored,  there  was 
no  reason  why  the  whole  of  the  correspondence  which  led  to  the 
treaty  of  peace,  should  not  be  made  public.  He  therefore  modi 
fied  his  motion  by  striking  out  the  excepting  clause,  in  italic,  and 
inserting  after  the  word  "Ghent,"  the  words,  "-together  with  the 
protocol"  He  would  also  observe,  that  the  bill  which  he  had  this 
day  reported  to  the  House,  contemplated  a  very  considerable 
change  in  our  intercourse  with  the  Indian  tribes  in  the  West,  and 
it  appeared,  by  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  made  yester 
day,  that  a  great  influence  wasJexercised  over  those  tribes  by  our 
European  neighbours  in  that  quarter.  The  correspondence  be 
tween  the  commissioners  at  Ghent  embraced  this  subject,  among 
others,  and  he  thought  it  was  desirable  that  the  House  should  be 
in  possession  of  the  whole  of  it. 


Mr.  Lowndes  presumed  the  House  would  have  no  objectioa  to 
obtaining  the  information  alluded  to,  if  it  were  proper  to  make  it 
public  ;  but  he  thought  it  would  be  proper  to  leave  the  President, 
in  the  form  of  the  request,  the  option  of  communicating  such  of 
the  correspondence  only  as  he  might  deem  it  not  improper  to  dis 
close.  This  was  the  usual  form  adopted  by  the  House,  and,  al 
though  peace  had  taken  place,  there  might  be  some  parts  of  the 
correspondence  which  it  would  be  improper  to  publish.  An  un 
limited  call  for  all  the  information  in  the  possession  of  the  govern 
ment  on  the  subject,  might  create  some  embarrassment,  and  he 
hoped  the  mover  of  the  resolution  would  restore  it  to  its  original 
shape. 

Mr.  Floyd  was  unwilling,  by  any  act  of  his,  to  embarrass  the 
executive  ;  but  presumed  there  was  nothing  asked  for  in  this  reso 
lution  which  would  have  that  effect,  and  feeling  anxious  to  obtain 
all  the  information  on  his  subject  which  could  be  furnished,  he  pre 
ferred  the  motion  in  its  present  form.  If  the  motion  would  reach 
any  state  secret — admitting  there  ought  to  be  any  state  secrets  in 
this  government — he  wished  not  to  be  instrumental  in  disturbing 
it ;  but  he  anticipated  no  such  consequence. 

Mr.  Lowndes  rejoined,  in  substance,  that  although  five  or  six 
years  had  elapsed  since  the  restoration  of  peace,  it  did  not  follow 
that  all  that  passed  in  the  negotiations  was  proper  for  publication. 
Some  parts  of  the  correspondence  it  might  be  incompatible  with 
the  public  interest  to  disclose  to  the  world  ;  at  any  rate  it  was  pro 
per  to  except  such  as  the  President  might  deem  the  public  good 
required  him  to  withhold.  Mr.  L.  therefore  moved  to  amend  the 
resolution  by  restoring  the  words,  "  and  which,  in  his  opinion,  it 
>tiay  not  be  improper  to  disclose." 

Mr.  Floyd  thought  there  was,  in  reality,  no  difference  between 
himself  and  the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina.  If  the  gentleman 
was  apprised  of  any  thing  which  it  was  improper  to  communicate 
to  the  House,  to  be  sure  that  would  be  a  different  matter  ;  but  if 
nis  remarks  were  general,  and  had  reference  to  no  particular  facts 
j.n  the  correspondence,  there  was  no  reason  for  the  amendment. 

The  question  being  taken,  the  amendment  was  agreed  to  ;  and 

Thus  amended,  the  resolution  was  adopted,  and  a  committee  of 
two  appointed  to  carry  it  to  the  President. 

On  this  debate  it  was  observable  that  the  mover  of  the  resolu 
tion  had  struck  out  the  usual  exception,  which  had  been  in  his 
draft  of  it  presented  the  day  before,  of  such  papers  as  in  the  Pre 
sident's  opinion,  it  might  be  improper  to  disclose  ;  and  had  added 
the  words  "  together  with  the  protocol ,"  which  had  not  been  in  the 
original  resolution.  The  words  of  exception  were  restored,  after 
debate  upon  the  motion  of  Mr.  Lowndes.  The  inferences  natu 
rally  drawn  from  these  circumstances  were,  that  in  the  day's  inter- 


val  between  the  offering  of  the  resolution,  and  the  debate  upon  it, 
suggestions  had  been  made  to  the  mover,  that  there  might  be  mo 
tives  operating  upon  the  executive,  for  withholding  precisely  the 
information  that  was  desired,  unless  the  whole  should  be  demand 
ed  ;  and  that  a  request  for  the  correspondence  would  be  liable  to 
fail  in  drawing  forth  the  momentous  disclosure,  unless  the  protocol 
should  also  be  required.  This  special  reference  to  the  protocol, 
would  more  readily  occur  to  a  person  who  had  been  concerned  in 
the  negotiation,  than  to  others,  and  the  debate  indicated  at  once 
some  eagerness  to  obtain  very  complete  information,  some  appre 
hensions  that  pains  would  be  taken  to  suppress  it,  and  some  im 
pression,  that  the  evidence  of  the  material  fact  to  be  elicited  was 
lodged  in  the  protocol.* 

It  was  in  the  protocol  of  the  conference  of  1st  December,  1814, 
that  the  proposal  made  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries  relating  to 
the  Mississippi  and  the  fisheries  was  contained.  But  all  the  Ame 
rican  plenipotentiaries  had  been  present  at  that  conference,  and  on 
the  face  of  the  protocol  it  appeared  that  the  proposal  had  been 
made  by  them  as  a  jojnt  act  of  all.  There  was  a  subsequent  letter 
from  them  of  14th  December,  1814,  to  the  British  plenipotentia 
ries,  signed  by  all,  and  referring  to  it  as  an  article  to  which  they  had 
no  objection,  considering  it  as  merely  declaratory.  There  was  nothing 
in  the  documents  showing  at  whose  instance  in  the  American  mis 
sion,  the  proposal  had  been  offered  ;  but  in  the  joint  letter  of  the 
mission  to  the*' Secretary  of  State  of  25th  December,  1814,  it  was 
stated  that  a  majority  of  the  mission  had  determined  to  offer  it,  and 
in  a  separate  letter  of  the  same  date,  Mr.  Russell  noticing  this  pas 
sage  of  the  joint  letter,  acknowledged,  in  candour,  that/ie  had  been 
on  that  occasion  in  the  minority  ;  and  reserved  to  himself  there 
after,  the  power  of  assigning  his  reasons  to  vindicate  his  motives. 
It  will  be  seen  in  the  course  of  the  following  papers,  that  the  indi 
cation  in  the  joint  letter,  that  the  offer  had  been  made,  upon  a  de 
termination  of  a  majority,  had,  by  an  alteration  of  the  original  draft 
been  inserted,  through  the  agency  of  Mr.  Russell,  not  (as  he  stated) 
at  his  own  desire,  but  at  that  of  Mr.  Clay.  But  neither  Mr.  Clay, 
nor  any  other  member  of  the  mission,  save  Mr.  Russell,  had 
thought  it  necessary  at  the  time  to  inform  the  government  how  he 

*  See  in  the  Appendix,  Mr.  Floyd's  Letter,  published  in  the   Richmond  En- 
er  of  27tli  August,  1822,  and  the  remarks  upon  it. 


had  voted  on  the  question,  or  to  vindicate  his  motives  for  his  vote. 

When  the  documents  called  for  by  the  resolution  of  the  House 
of  17th  January,  1822,  were  on  the  23d  of  February  communicated 
by  the  message  from  the  President,  they  did  indeed  show  that  this 
portentous  proposal  had  been  made  ;  but  that  it  was  by  the  concur 
rent  act  of  all  the  American  plenipotentiaries.  They  also  showed 
that  upon  the  expediency  of  making  the  proposal,  there  had  pre 
viously  been  taken  a  vote,  on  which  occasion  Mr.  Russell  had  been 
in  the  minority.  The  documents  were,  by  order  of  the  House, 
laid  upon  the  table,  and  there  reposed  for  the  space  of  nearly  two 
months  till  the  18th  of  April. 

In  the  mean  time  the  correspondence  from  Washington,  and  the 
newspapers  indoctrinated  by  it,  had  not  been  equally  inactive. 
Through  these  channels,  the  public  were  assured  that  the  proposal 
ef  offering  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  for  the  fisheries,  had 
been  made  by  me ;  that  Mr.  Clay  had  uniformly  declared  that  he 
would  not  sign  the  treaty,  wilh  such  an  article  in  it ;  and  that" the 
proposal  had  been  finally  set  aside,  by  Mr.  Bayard's  having  chang 
ed  his  mind,. and  come  over  to  the  opinion  of  the  minority.  Not  one 
of  these  three  statements  was  true,  though  Mr.  Russell  has  since 
positively  asserted  the  second,  and  gone  still  further  than  the 
third,  by  alleging  that  the  proposal  was  actually  made  by  a  minori 
ty  of  the  mission,  against  the  will  of  Mr.  Bayard,  and  without  giv 
ing  him  notice  after  he  had  changed  his  mind. 

None  of  these  allegations  could  derive  any  countenance  from  the 
documents  communicated  to  the  House,  under  their  resolution  ot" 
the  17th  of  January.  But  Mr.  Russell's  letter  from  Paris  was  in 
reserve.  The  following  papers  will  show  how  it  was  finally  brought 
before  the  House,  together  with  a  new  edition  of  it  in  the  form  of 
a  duplicate ;  and  how  a  third  exemplar,  varying  from  both,  was 
presented  to  the  public,  in  the  National  Gazette  at  Philadelphia. 
The  duplicate  was  the  first  of  these  papers  seen  by  me,  and  from 
the  moment  of  my  perusing  it,  I  could  be  no  longer  at  a  loss,  for  the 
origin  of  the  storm,  which  a  friendly  voice  had  warned  me  was  to 
burst  upon  me  from  the  West.  The  letter  was  a  tale  wrought  up 
with  the  ingenuity  of  a  novelist,  representing  the  proposition  made 
to  the  British  plenipotentiaries  on  the  1st  of  December,  1814,  as 
a  deliberate  and  wanton  sacrifice  of  the  peace  and  security  of  the 
whole  Western  and  Southern  section  of  the  Union,  for  the  doubtful 


accommodation  of  a  tew  Eastern  fishermen,  annually  decreasing  u 
number,  entirely  exempt  from  the  danger,  and  unsupported  by  any 
claim  of  right.  To  take  away  all  excuse  from  this  procedure,  it 
was  represented  as  having  been  pursued  by  the  majority,  in  wilful 
and  express  violation  of  the  instructions  to  the  mission,  as  under 
stood  by  themselves,  and  in  defiance  of  the  remonstrances  of  the  mi* 
norily;  Mr.  Russell  represented  himself  as  having  inflexibly  opposed 
it  to  the  last,  and  the  whole  purport  of  the  letter  tended  to  the  im 
pression  that  he  had,  in  the  deliberations  of  the  mission  at  Ghent 
opposed  the  measure  by  urging  against  it  all  the  reasons  which 
were  set  forth  in  the  letter  itself.  There  was  withal,  a  profession 
of  unfeigned  respect  for  the  integrity,  talents,  and  judgment  of  the 
majority,  thus  represented  as  having  grossly  violated  their  own  sense 
of  their  duties,  and  been  prepared  to  lay  open  to  British  smugglers 
and  emissaries,  and  to  all  the  horrors  of  Indian  warfare,  the  unof 
fending  citizens  of  the  largest  portion  of  the  Union. 

No  one  member  of  the  majority  was  specially  named  in  Mr, 
Russell's  letter,  as  peculiarly  responsible  for  the  obnoxious  propo 
sal,  but  the  joint  letter  of  the  mission  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  of 
25th  December,  1814,  had  been  drawn  up  by  me.  Mr.  Russell^ 
who  had  signed  it  without  discussion,  and  without  proposing  any 
alteration  to  it,  excepting  those  noticed  in  these  papers,  had,  as  ap 
peared  by  this  duplicate,  taken  it  as  the  text  for  an  adverse  com 
mentary.  The  joint  letter,  written  the  day  after  the  signature  of 
the  treaty,  to  be  despatched  with  it,  had  given  to  the  Secretary  of 
State,  a  concise  and  summary  narrative  of  the  proceedings  of  the 
mission  since  the  31st  of  October,  1814,  the  date  of  their  last  pre 
ceding  despatch.  In  this  narrative  were  mentioned  the  circum 
stances  under  which  the  proposal  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries 
of  1st  December,  1814,  had  been  made  ;  the  reasoning  by  which 
it  had  been  discussed  with  them,  the  counter-proposition  which  they 
had  offered  as  a  substitute  for  it,  and  their  final  acceptance,  in  its 
stead,  of  the  alternative  which  we  had  offered  with  it,  of  omitting 
altogether  the  article  by  which  they  would  have  abandoned  their 
claim  to  the  boundary  line  to  the  Mississippi.  It  was  to  the  rea 
soning  interwoven  with  this  narrative,  reasoning  which  had  been 
used  by  the  American  mission  in  debate  with  the  British  plenipo 
tentiaries,  and  as  adversaries  in  argument  to  them,  that  I  found  Mi 
Russell's  duplicate  was  a  deeply -studied,  counter-argument.  He  had 


undertaken,  after  the  conclusion  of  the  treaty,  to  do  that  for  tlxe 
enemy  which  they  had  not  done  for  themselves  ;  but  the  glaring 
fallacy  of  his  letter  was,  that  it  represented  that  which  had  been 
urged  on  our  part  is  discussion  with  them,  as  if  it  had  been  a  sub 
ject  of  debate  among  ourselves.  It  undertook  to  prove,  that  the 
principles  which  we  had  asserted,  and  the  arguments  we  had  urged 
to  the  British  commissioners,  in  support  of  bur  fishing  liberties, 
contested  by  them,  were  entirely  without  foundation  ;  that  we  had 
no  right  to  the  fishing  liberties,  and  no  right  even  to  advance  a  claim 
to  them  ;  and  that  these  had  been  among  his  reasons  for  refusing 
his  consent  to  the  proposal  of  a  stipulation  for  securing  them.  The 
duplicate, 

11  Tarn  ficti,  pravique  tenax,  quam  nuncia  veri," 

blended  with  these  misrepresentations,  the  objections  which  Mr. 
Clay  had  made,  not  only  against  the  proposal  which  was  offered, 
but  against  an  article  which  never  had  been  offered,  and  alleged  as 
capping  the  climax  of  all  Mr.  Russell's  reasons  against  the  propo 
sals,  that  it  was  in  express  violation  of  instructions  which  had  been 
cancelled  before,  the  proposal  was  made. 

Heterogeneous  ^and  incongruous  as  were  these  materials,  they 
had  obviously  been  mixed  up  with  the  design  of  exciting  the  re 
sentment  and  indignation  of  the  Western  and  Southern  sections  of 
the  Union  against  the  offer  made  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries, 
and  against  those  by  whom  it  had  been  proposed.  When  the  ori 
ginal  letter  from  Paris  was  found,  a  comparison  of  it  with  the  du 
plicate  disclosed  this  design  in  still  broader  light.  All  the  new  pa 
ragraphs  had  a  direct  tendency  either  to  aggravate  the  criminality 
and  injustice  of  the  majority,  or  to  make  special  claims  for  the 
writer  to  Western  favour  and  gratitude,  or  to  deprecate  by  flattering 
compliments  the  resentments  of  the  Eastern  fishing  interest.  To 
any  person  unacquainted  with  the  real  transactions  at  the  negotia 
tion  of  Ghent,  the  composition  was  mingled  with  so  much  address 
and  plausibility,  that  it  was  eminently  calculated  to  produce  its  ef 
fect.  It  was  difficult  to  suppose  that  the  Ghent  documents,  and  this 
letter  in  particular,  had  been  called  forth  from  their  slumbers  of 
seven  years  for  any  other  purpose. 

There  were  circumstances  of  a  peculiar  nature,  imposing  upon 
me  the  obligation  of  meeting  this  accusation  at  once,  and  in  the 
most  explicit  manner.  The  documents  called  for  by  the  House  in 


10 

their  first  resolution  of  1 7th  January,  were  to  be  furnished  from  the 
Department  of  State  ;  and  some  mistrust  had  been  discovered,  thai 
there  would  be  a  disposition  there  to  withhold  some  of  them.  The 
second  call,  was  for  a  paper  known  not  to  be  forth-coming  from 
thence,  until  it  should  be  furnished  by  Mr.  Russell  himself;  for 
which  he  had  taken  care  to  be  prepared.  Mr.  Russell,  too,  by  ob 
serving,  when  he  delivered  it  at  the  Department,  that  he  was  in 
different  whether  it  should  be  communicated  or  not,  but  if  not,  that 
he  wished  it  might  be  returned  to  him,  evidently  disclosed  a  suppo 
sition  on  his  part,  that  I  should  feel  reluctant  at  the  communication 
of  it  to  the  House — that  I  should  shrink  from  the  exhibition  of  its 
contents  to  the  world.  My  official  duty  was  to  report  it  to  the  Pre 
sident  for  communication  to  the  House,  and  if  precluded  from  the 
privilege  of  remarking  upon  it,  1  should  have  been  reduced  to  the 
singular  predicament  of  being  made  the  silent  reporter  of  my  own 
condemnation.  A  deceased,  and  an  absent  colleague,  were  impli 
cated  in  the  charges  of  the  letter,  apparently  as  much  as  myself. 
Could  I  in  justice  to  myself,  I  could  not  in  duty  to  them,  be  the 
bearer  of  these  imputations  to  the  Legislative  Assembly  of  the  na 
tion,  without  declaring  them  to  be  unfounded.  I  did,  therefore,  in 
reporting  the  paper  to  the  President,  request  that  in  the  communi- 
Ca  ion  of  it  to  the  House,  it  might  be  accompanied  by  my  Remarks. 
The  following  pages  will  show  the  sequel. 

In  the  collection  of  these  papers,  however,  the  defence  and  jus 
tification  of  myself  and  my  colleagues  of  the  majority,  forms  but  a 
secondary  purpose.  Its  primary  intention  is  to  prove — 

1.  That  the  principle  assumed  by  the  American  mission    at 
Ghent,  at  the  proposal  of  Mr.  Clay,  and  in  a  paragraph  drawn 
up  by  him  that  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States  in  the  North  American  fisheries,  were  not  abro 
gated  by  the  war  of  1812,  was  a  just  and  sound  principle,  en 
tirely  conformable  to  the  law  of  nations. 

2.  That  the  article  first  offered  by  Mr.  Gallatin,  which  was  not 
proposed  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  and  the  amendment 
to  the  8th  article  of  the  project,  also  offered  by  Mr.  Gallatin, 
which  was  actually  proposed  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries, 
and  by  them  rejected,  was   only  a  declaratory  recognition  of 
that  same  principle,   applied  to  the  British  right  of  navigating 
the  Mississippi,  as  well  as  to  our  fishery  rights  and  liberties 


11 

3.  That,   considered  even  on  the  narrow  ground  of  conflicting 
sectional  interests,  this  article  and  amendment  proposed  to 
place  the  East  and  the  West  in  the  same  state  as  before  the 
war  ;  without  gain  to  one  or  loss  to  the  other. 

4.  That  the  objection,  by  the  minority,  against  the  article  and 
amendment,  insisted,  in  principle,  upon  the  sacrifice  of  an 
Eastern  for  the  benefit  of  a  Western  interest. 

5.  That  the  Eastern  interest  to  be  sacrificed,  was  of  very  great 
importance  to  the  Union,  and  of  vital  magnitude  to  the  State 
of  Massachusetts  ;  while  the  Western  interest,  for  which  it 
was  to  be  immolated,  was  altogether  speculative  and  imagina 
ry.     It  was   most  truly  denominated,  by  the  member  of  the 
mission  now  no  more,  bragging  a  million  against  a  cent. 

If,  therefore,  the  letter  of  Mr.  Russell,  of  llth  February,  1815, 
from  Paris,  had  been  the  real  exposition  of  the  motives  of  the  mi 
nority,  for  objecting  to  the  proposed  article  and  amendment  of  Mr. 
Gallatin,  its  whole  foundation,  both  of  law  and  of  fact,  failing,  would 
have  left  the  minority  without  any  justification  for  their  votes  what 
soever.  With  regard  to  the  comparative  value  of  the  two  interests 
in  question,  it  was  impossible  for  the  minority  with  more  sincere 
and  deep  conviction  to  believe  the  views  of  the  majority  to  be  er 
roneous,  than  the  majority  thought  those  of  the  minority  to  be  so. 
But  it  never  entered  into  my  head,  and  never  could  have  entered 
into  my  heart,  to  treasure  up  these  errors  of  opinion  for  after-use 
against  a  colleague  of  the  mission  ;  to  "  set  in  a  note-book,  con,  and 
learn  by  rote,"  opinions  expressed  in  the  mutual  confidence  of  as 
sociates  in  a  great  national  trust,  in  order  to  bring  them  forth,  after 
many  years,  as  engines  to  ruin  a  rival  reputation. 

But  the  letter  from  Paris  was  no  exposition  of  the  opinions  which 
had  been  manifested  by  the  minority  at  Ghent.  The  principle, 
that  the  fishing  liberties  had  not  been  abrogated  by  the  war,  had 
been  asserted  by  the  mission  at  Ghent,  on  the  proposal  of  Mr.  Clay. 
The  refutation  of  it  is  the  most  heavily  laboured  part  of  the  letter 
from  Paris.  If  individual  opinions  upon  the  expediency  of  particu 
lar  measures  adopted  by  the  mission,  are  to  be  made  the  test  of 
merit  or  demerit  for  individual  members  of  the  mission,  it  is  not  a 
little  whimsical  that  Mr.  Russell,  for  the  minority,  should  now  dis 
claim  the  principle  adopted  at  the  motion  of  one  of  them,  and  which 
has  been  completely  successful  in  maintaining  the  interest  in  de- 


12 

fence  ol  which  it  was  advanced,  and  pin  all  their  claims  ot" superior 
service  upon  their  ineffectual  opposition  to  a  proposal  which  they 
did  actually  concur  in  making,  and  which  failed,  not  in  consequence 
of  their  objections,  but  because  the  enemy  disdained  to  accept  it. 
If  by  the  sturdiness  of  their  adherence  to  their  opinions,  they  had 
prevented  the  proposal  from  being  made,  there  might  have  been 
some  semblance  of  a  claim  to  credit  from  those  who  tremble  at  the 
sight  of  an  Englishman  afloat  upon  the  Mississippi.  If  the  enemy 
had  eagerly  snatched  at  the  offer,  and  British  emissaries,  British 
smugglers,  and  Indian  wars,  had  swarmed  upon  us,  in  consequence, 
the  minority  might  have  had  some  apology,  for  disengaging  their  re 
sponsibility  to  the  act,  and  casting  upon  their  colleagues  of  the  ma 
jority  all  its  evil  report.  *  But  so  far  as  the  proposal  could  possibly 
have  operated  mischief,  they  are  answerable  for  it  by  their  con 
currence.  So  far  as  the  immediate  rejection  of  the  proposal  by  a 
clear-sighted  enemy,  can  test  its  possible  consequences,  the  event 
affords  as  little  cause  for  the  minority  to  glory  in  their  foresight,  as 
their  assent  to  what  they  thought  so  pernicious,  gives  them  reason 
to  be  proud  of  their  firmness.  A  loud  call  upon  the  nation  to  dis 
criminate  between  the  profound  wisdom  and  comprehensive  pa 
triotism  of  the  minority,  and  the  dulness,  absurdity,  and  contracted 
spirit,  or  treachery,  of  the  majority,  could  scarcely  rest  on  weaker 
grounds,  than  upon  the  aversion  of  the  minority  to  principles  which 
they  nevertheless  did  sanction  ;  and  upon  their  arguments  against 
measures  to  which  they  did  subscribe  their  names.  The  majority 
have  asked  for  no  discrimination.  As  one  of  them,  I  have  as  little 
desire  to  conceal,  as  to  proclaim,  my  separate  agency  in  the  transac 
tions  of  the  mission,  or  my  vote  upon  any  measure  discussed  by 
them.  I  ask,  only,  not  to  be  misrepresented. 

-JOHN  QUINCY  ADAM?;. 

21st  September,  1822, 


CORRESPONDENCE  WHICH  LED  TO  THE  TREATY  OF 

GHENT. 


.Ext fact  from  the  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States, 
JANUARY  16,  1822. 

Mr.  Floyd  submitted  the  following  resolution,  viz  : 

Resolved,  That  the  President  of  the  United  States  be  requested  to  cause  to 
be  laid  before  this  House,  all  the  correspondence  which  led  to  the  Treaty  of 
Ghent,  which  has  not  yet  been  made  public,  and  which,  in  his  opinion,  it  may 
«ot  be  improper  to  disclose. 

The  said  resolution  was  read  and  ordered  to  lie  on  the  table  one  day. 

JANUARY    17,    1822. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Floyd, 

The  House  proceeded  to  consider  the  resolution  submitted  by  him  yesterday^ 
and  the  same  being  again  read,  and  modified  to  read  as  follows  : 

Resolved,  That  the  President  of  the  United  States  be  requested  to  cause  to 
be  laid  before  this  House,  all  the  correspondence  which  led  to  the  Treaty  of 
Ghent,  together  with  the  Protocol,  which  has  not  yet  been  made  public. 

Mr.  Lowmles  moved  to  amend  the  same,  by  subjoining  the  following,  viz  : 
'*  And  which,  in  his  opinion,  it  may  not  be  improper  to  disclose.'' 

And  the  question  being  taken  thereon,  it  passed  in  the  affirmative. 

The  said  resolution,  modified  and  amended  as  aforesaid,  was  then  agreed  to 
by  the  House;  and  Mi.  Floyd  and  Mr.  Walworth  were  appointed  a  committee 
to  present  the  same  to  the  President  of  the  United  States. 


To  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States : 

I  transmit  to  the  House  of  Representatives,  a  Report  frfyn  the 
Secretary  of  State,  with  the  Documents  accompanying  it,  in  pur 
suance  of  a  resolution  of  the  House  of  the  17th  of  January  last. 

JAMES  MONROE, 

Washington,  21st  February,  1822. 


Department  of  State, 

Washington,  21st  Feb.  1822. 

The  Secretary  of  State,  to  whom  has  been  referred  the  resolu 
tion  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  17th  January,  request 
ing  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  cause  to  be  laid  before  the 
House  all  the  correspondence  which  led  to  the  Treaty  of  Ghent, 
together  with  the  Protocol,  which  has  not  been  made  public,  and 
which,  in  his  opinion,  it  may  not  be  improper  to  disclose,  has  the 
honour  to  submit  to  the  President  the  papers  embraced  by  that 
resolution. 

JOHN  Q.UINCY  ADAMS. 

The  President  of  the  United  States. 
2 


14 

CORRESPONDENCE,  &c. 


American  Note  No.  6.  in  answer  to  British  Note  No.  6. 

Ghent,  November  10,  1814. 

The  undersigned  have  the  honour  to  acknowledge  the  receipt 
of  the  note  addressed  to  them  by  His  Britannic  Majesty's  Plenipo 
tentiaries,  on  the  31st  ultimo. 

The  undersigned  had  considered  an  interchange  of  the  project 
of  a  trteaty  as  the  course  best  calculated  to  exclude  useless  and  de 
sultory  discussion,  to  confine  the  attention  of  both  parties  to  the 
precise  object  to  be  adjusted  between  the  two  nations,  and  to  has 
ten  the  conclusion  of  the  peace  so  desirable  to  both.  Finding,  in 
the  note  of  the  British  plenipotentiaries  of  the  [21st]  ultimo,  a  mere 
reference  to  the  points  proposed  by  them  in  the  first  conference, 
with  the  offer  of  assuming  the  basis  ofuli  possidetis,  on  which  the 
undersigned  had  in  substance  already  declined  to  treat  ;  they  did 
not  consider  it  as  the  project  of  a  treaty  presented  in  compliance 
with  their  request,  They  proposed,  in  their  note  of  the  24th  ulti 
mo,  that  the  exchange  of  the  two  projects  should  be  made  at  the 
same  time.  And  it  is  not  without  some  surprise,  that  the  under 
signed  observe,  in  the  note  to  which  they  now  have  the  honour  of 
replying,  that  the  British  plenipotentiaries  consider  their  note  as 
containing  the  project  of  a  treaty,  to  which  the  undersigned  are 
supposed  to  be  pledged  to  return  a  counter-project. 

Believing  that  where  both  parties  arc  sincerely  desirous  of  bring 
ing  a  negotiation  to  a  happy  termination,  the  advantage  of  giving 
or  of  receiving  the  first  draft  is  not  of  a  magnitude  to  be  made  a 
subject  of  controversy,  and  convinced  that  their  government  is  too 
sincerely  desirous  of  that  auspicious  result  to  approve  o*'  its  being 
delayed  for  a  moment  upon  any  question  of  etiquette,  the  under 
signed  have  the  honour  to  enclose  herewith  the  project  of  a  treaty,, 
accompanied  with  some  observations  upon  several  of  the  articles, 
which  may  more  fully  elucidate  their  object  in  proposing  them. 

The  British  plenipotentiaries  stated,  in  their  last  note,  that 
they  had  no  other  propositions  to  offer,  nor  other  demands  to  make, 
than  those  contained  in  their  note  of  the  21st  ultimo,  which,  with 
the  reference  to  their  former  declaration  respecting  the  fisheries, 
contains  only  two  propositions,  viz  :  that  of  fixing  the  boundary 
from  the  Lake  of  the  Woods  to  the  Mississippi  ;  and  that  of  adopt 
ing,  with  respect  to  the  other  boundaries,  the  basis  of  uti  possidetis. 

*[In  answer  to  the  declaration  made  by  the  British  plenipoten 
tiaries  respecting  the  fisheries,  the  undersigned,  referring  to  what 
passed  in  the  conference  of  the  9th  August,  can  only  state  that  they 
are  not  authorized  to  bring  into  discussion  any  of  the  rights  or  li 
berties  which  the  United  States  have  heretofore  enjoyed  in  relation 

*  Paragraph  drawn  by  Mr.  Clay,  and  inserted  at  bis  proposal- 


thereto.  From  their  nature,  and  from  the  peculiar  character  of 
the  treaty  of  1783,  by  which  they  were  recognised,  no  further 
stipulation  has  been  deemed  necessary  by  the  government  of  the 
United  States,  to  entitle  them  to  the  full  enjoyment  of  all  of  them.] 

The  undersigned  have  aready,  in  their  last  note,  explicitly  de 
clined  treating  on  the  basis  of  uti  possidetis.  They  cannot  agree 
to  any  other  principle  than  that  of  mutual  restoration  of  territory, 
and  have  accordingly  prepared  an  article  founded  orf  that  basis. 
They  are  willing  even  to  extend  the  same  principle  to  the  other 
objects  in  dispute  between  the  two  nations  ;  and  in  proposing  all 
the  other  articles  included  in  this  project,  they  wish  to  be  distinctly 
understood,  that  they  are  ready  to  sign  a  treaty,  placing  the  two 
countries,  in  respect  to  all  the  subjects  of  difference  between  them, 
in  the  same  state  they  were  in  at  the  commencement  of  the  present 
urar  ;  reserving  to  each  party  all  its  rights,  and  leaving  whatever 
may  remain  of  controversy  between  them,  for  future  and  pacific 
negotiation. 

The  British  plenipotentiaries  having,  in  their  note  of  the  4th  ol 
September,  communicated  the  disposition  of  their  government  to 
receive  tavourably  a  proposition  which  should  acknowledge  the 
boundary  from  the  Lake  of  the  Woods  to  the  Mississippi,  or  to  dii- 
cuss  any  other  line  of  boundary  which  might  be  submitted  for  con 
sideration,  the  undersigned  answered,  that  as  soon  as  the  proposi 
tion  of  Indian  boundary  should  be  disposed  of,  they  would  have  no 
objection,  with  the  explanation  given  by  the  British  plenipotentia 
ries,  to  discuss  the  subject. 

The  government  of  the  United  States  had,  prior  to  the  acquisi 
tion  of  Louisiana,  been  disposed  to  agree  to  the  boundary,  from  the 
Lake  of  the  Woods  to  the  Mississippi,  from  a  wish  not  only  to  ar 
range  that  subject,  but  also  to  settle,  in  a  definitive  manner,  the 
differences  respecting  the  boundary  and  islands  in  the  Bay  of  Pas- 
samaquoddy  :  and  its  assent  to  the  proposed  stipulation  of  that 
boundary  was  refused  on  account  of  the  acquisition  of  Louisiana, 
the  boundaries  of  which  might  have  been  affected  by  it.  The  un 
dersigned  cannot  agree  to  fix  the  boundaries  in  that  quarter,  unless 
that  of  Louisiana  be  also  provided  for  in  the  arrangement.  They 
accordingly  submit  for  consideration  the  article  on  that  subject 
which  appears  to  have  been  agreed  on  between  the  British  and 
American  commissioners  in  the  project  of  convention  of  the  year 
1807. 

In  respect  to  the  intended  review  of  the  other  boundaries  be 
tween  the  British  and  American  territories,  with  the  view  to  pre 
vent  future  uncertainty  and  dispute,  the  undersigned  propose  the 
reference  of  the  whole  subject  to  commissioners  :  and  they  pre 
sent  accordingly  five  articles,  drawn  on  the  principles  formerly 
adopted  by  the  two  powers  for  settling  the  question  respecting  the 
river  St.  Croix. 

The  article  already  agreed  on,  respecting  the  Indian  pacification, 
is  included  in  the  project  of  the  undersigned.  In  conformity  with 


16 

their  former  suggestion,  they  offer  another,  intended  to  restrain  the 
hostilities,  and  to  prevent  the  employment,  of  the  savages  in  war, 
and  one  reciprocally  granting  a  general  amnesty. 

The  only  other  subjects  which  have  been  presented  by  the  un 
dersigned  as  suitable  for  discussion,  were  those  respecting  seamen, 
blockade,  and  indemnities. 

Keeping  in  view  the  declaration  made  by  lord  Castlercagh,  in 
his  note  ofthe^Qth  of  August,  1812,  to  Mr-  Russell,  and  in  his  let 
ter  of  the  4th  November,  1813,  to  Mr.  Monroe,  the  undersigned 
propose  only  a  temporary  article,  intended,  without  affecting  the 
rights  or  pretensions  of  either  country,  to  attempt  to  accomplish, 
by  means  less  liable  to  vexation,  the  object  for  which  impressment 
has  hitherto  been  thought  necessary  by  Great  Britain.  The  pro 
posed  agreement  being  purely  conditional,  and  limited  in  duration, 
each  party  will  be  bound  only  so  far,  and  so  long,  as  the  other  shall 
fulfil  its  conditions  ;  and  at  the  end  of  the  term  fixed  for  the  dura 
tion  of  the  article,  or  whenever  either  party  may  fail  to  perform 
his  engagement,  the  rights  of  both  will  be  as  valid  and  entire  as 
they  were  before  the  agreement. 

The  article  respecting  blockades  is  believed  to  he  in  perfect  con 
formity  with  the  principles  of  the  law  of  nations,  as  acknowledged 
by  both  nations.  The  definition  is  borrowed  from  the  treaty  of 
1801,  between  Great  Britain  and  Russia,  and  the  residue  of  the 
article  from  the  unratified  treaty  of  1806,  between  Great  Britain 
and  the  United  States. 

That  relating  to  indemnities,  consists  of  two  parts  :  the  first  for 
irregular  seizures,  captures,  and  condemnations  of  American  pro 
perty,  contrary  to  the  established  laws  and  usages  of  nations,  pre 
vious  to  the  commencement  of  the  war  ;  and  the  second  for  similar 
irregularities  committed  during  the  war.  and  contrary  to  the  known 
and  established  usages  of  war,  between  civilized  nations.  The 
cases  of  the  first  apply  exclusively  to  claims  of  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  because,  the  causes  of  such  claims  were  then  con 
fined,  by  the  relative  situation  of  the  parties,  to  one  side.  It  is  pre 
sumed,  that  the  British  government  will  itself  be  sensible  of  the 
justice  of  making  indemnity  for  injuries  committed  by  its  officers, 
in  violation  of  principles  avowed  and  recognised  by  itself;  particu 
larly  in  the  letter  from  lord  Hawkesbury  to  Mr.  King,  of  llth 
April,  1801,  and  in  that  from  Mr.  Merry  to  Mr.  Madison,  of  12th 
April,  1804  ;  and  that  the  same  justice  will  be  admitted,  in  cases 
where  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  was  violated, 
and  where  the  injury  was  occasioned  by  the  retrospective  effects 
of  the  British  Orders  in  Council,  of  June,  1803,  as  to  the  return 
from  the  contraband  voyages,  and  of  the  Orders  in  Council  of  Ja 
nuary  7,  1807. 

With  regard  to  the  Orders  in  Council,  of  November,  1807,  and 
of  April,  1809,  the  undersigned  will  observe,  that  these  having 
been  issued  solely  on  the  ground  of  retaliation  against  France,  and 
their  object  having  altogether  ceased,  it  is  just  to  indemnify  the 


17 

citizens  of  the  United  States  for  losses  experienced  by  the  effect  o» 
measures  intended  to  operate  against  the  enemy  of  Great  Britain, 
and  which  fell  almost  exclusively  on  a  country,  which  was  no  party 
to  the  war.  The  United  States  have  never  ceased,  and  at  this  time, 
continue  to  demand,  from  France,  indemnity  for  the  losses  they 
have  experienced  by  the  effect  of  the  decrees  of  her  government, 
in  violation  of  the  law  of  nations. 

The  cases  of  the  second  part  of  this  article  apply  equally  to 
both  the  belligerent  parties.  They  have  been,  during  the  war, 
subjects  of  crimination  on  both  sides.  The  American  government 
can  give  no  stronger  and  more  signal  proof  of  its  disapprobation  of 
every  departure,  under  colour  of  its  authority,  from  the  established 
usages  of  legitimate  warfare  between  civilized  nations,  than  by  the 
offt*  of  mutual  reparation. 

The  article  fixing  a  limitation  for  captures  at  sea,  does  not  seem 
to  require  any  comment. 

The  undersigned  present  their  entire  project  in  this  specific 
form,  with  the  full  expectation  of  receiving  from  the  British  pleni 
potentiaries  their  explicit  answer  respecting  all  the  articles  embra 
ced  in  it,  and  a  project  also  reduced  to  specific  propositions,  and 
embracing  all  the  objects  which  they  intend  to  bring  forward. 

The  undersigned  renew  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries  the  as 
surance  of  their  high  consideration. 

JOHN  QU1NCY  ADAMS, 
J.  A.  BAYARD, 
HENRY  CLAY, 
JONATHAN  RUSSELL, 
ALBERT  GALLATI> .-." 

To  the  Plenipotentiaries  of  His  Britannic 

Majesty,  &c.  &c.  Aic.  Ghent. 


Copy  of  a  project  of  a  treaty  of  peace  submitted  by  the  American  to  the 
British  Plenipotentiaries  at  Ghent,  on  the  10th  day  of  Nov.  1814. 

Treaty  of  Peace  and  Amity  between  his  Britannic  Majesty  and  the 
United  States  of  America. 

His  Britannic  Majesty  and  the  United  States  of  America  desirous 
of  terminating  the  war  which  has  unhappily  subsisted  between  the 
two  countries,  and  of  restoring,  upon  principles  of  perfect  recipro 
city,  peace,  friendship,  and  good  understanding, between  them,  have 
for  that  purpose,  appointed  their  respective  plenipotentiaries,  that 
is  to  say  :  His  Britannic  Majesty  on  his  part  has  appointed  the  right 
honourable  James  Lord  Gambier,  admiral  of  the  White  Squadron 
of  his  Majesty's  fleet,  Henry  Goulburn,  Esquire,  a  member  of  the 
Imperial  Parliament  and  under  Secretary  of  State,  and  William 
Adam?.  Esq.  Doctor  of  Civil  Laws  ;  and  the  President  of  the  Unit- 


IB 

ed  States,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  thereof, 
has  appointed  John  Quincy  Adams,  James  A.  Bayard,  Henry  Clay,, 
Jonathan  Russell,  and  Albert  Gallatin,  citizens  of  the  United  States. 
who,  after  a  reciprocal  communication  of  their  respective  full 
powers,  have  agreed  upon  the  following  articles  : 

ARTICLE  I.  There  shall  be  a  firm  and  universal  ponce  between 
his  Britannic  Majesty  and  the  United  States,  and  between  their 
respective  countries,  territories,  cities,  towns,  and  people  of  every 
degree,  without  exception  of  persons  or  places.  AH  hostilities 
both  by  sea  and  land  shall  immediately  cease.  All  prisoners  on  both 
sides  shall  be  set  at  liberty.  All  territory,  places,  and  possessions, 
without  exception,  taken  by  either  party  from  the  other  during  the 
war,  or  which  may  be  taken  after  the  signing  of  this  treaty,  shall 
be  restored  without  delay,  and  without  causing  any  destruction^  or 
carrying  away  any  artillery  or  other  public  property,  or  any  slaves 
or  other  private  property  ;  and  all  archives,  records,  deeds,  and 
papers,  either  of  a  public  nature  or  belonging  to  private  persons, 
which,  in  the  course  of  the  war,  may  have  fallen  into  the  hands  of 
the  officers-  of  either  party,  shall  be  forthwith  restored  and  deliver 
ed  to  the  proper  authorities  and  persons,  to  whom  they  respective 
ly  belong. 

ARTICLE  II.  Immediately  after  the  respective  ratifications  of 
this  treaty,  orders  shall  be  sent  to  the  armies,  squadrons,  officers, 
subjects,  and  citizens  of  the  two  powers,  to  cease  from  all  hos 
tilities.  And  to  prevent  all  causes  of  complaint  which  might 
arise  on  account  of  the  prizes  which  may  be  taken  at  sea  after  the 
signing  of  this  treaty,  it  is  reciprocally  agreed  that  the  vessels  and 
enVtlft  which  may  be  taken  in  the  Channel  and  in  the  North  Seas  af 
ter  the  space  of from  that  of  the  signature  hereof,  shall  be 

restored  on  each  side  :  that  the  term  shall  be from  the  Chan 
nel  and  the  North  Seas  to  the  Canary  Islands,  inclusively,  whether 

in  the  ocean  or  the  Mediterranean  :  of from  the  said  Canary 

Islands  to  the  equinoctial  line  or  equator,  and  of in  all  other 

parts  of  the  world,  without  exception. 

ARTICLE  III.  Whereas  that  portion  of  the  boundary  between  the 
dominions  of  his  Britannic  Majesty  in  North  America,  and  those  of 
the  United  States,  from  the  mouth  of  the  river  St.  Croix,  (as  the 
said  mouth  was  ascertained  by  the  commissioners  appointed  for 
that  purpose,)  to  the  bay  of  Fundy,  has  not  yet  been  regulated  and 
determined  ;  and,  whereas,  the  respective  rights  and  claims  of  his 
Britannic  Majesty  and  of  the  United  States,  to  the  several  islands  in 
the  bay  of  Passamaquoddy,  and  to  the  island  of  Grand  Menan,  have 
never  been  finally  adjusted  and  determined,  the  said  islands  being 
claimed  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  as  lying  within  twenty 
leagues  of  their  shores,  and  south  of  aline  drawn  due  east  from  the 
mouth  of  the  river  St.  Croix  ;  and  on  the  part  of  his  Britannic  Ma- 
}esty,  as  having  been,  at  or  before  the  former  treaty  of  peace,  be 
tween  the  two  boundaries  within  the  limits  of  the  province  of  Nova 
Scotia  :  In  order,  therefore,  finally  to  decide  these  several  ques- 


19 

S'ons,  it  is  agreed  that  they  shall  be  referred  to  three  commissioners, 
to  be  appointed  in  the  following  manner,  viz  :  one  commissioner 
shall  be  appointed  by  his  Britannic  Majesty,  and  one  by  the  Presi 
dent  of  the  United  States,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of 
the  Senate  thereof,  and  the  said  two  commissioners,  shall  have 
power  to  choose  a  third  ;  and  if  they  cannot  agree,  they  shall  each 
propose  one  person,  and  of  the  two  names  so  proposed,  one  shall 
be  drawn  by  lot,  in  the  presence  of  the  two  original  commissioners, 
and  the  three  commissioners  so  appointed,  shall  be  sworn  impar 
tially  to  examine  and  decide  the  said  questions  according  to  fuch 
evidence  as  shall  respectively  be  laid  before  them,  on  the  part  of 
the  British  government  and  the  United  States.  The  said  commis- 

missioners  shall  meet  at and  shall  have  power  to  adjourn  to 

such  other  place  or  places  as  they  shall  think  tit.  The  said  com 
missioners,  or  a  majority  of  them,  shall,  by  a  declaration  under 
their  hands  and  seals,  determine  the  boundary  aforesaid,  from  the 
mouth  of  the  river  St.  Croix  to  the  bay  of  Fundy  ;  and  decide  to 
which  of  the  two  contracting  parties  the  several  islands  aforesaid 
do  respectively  belong,  in  conformity  with  the  true  intent  of  the 
former  treaty  of  peace.  And  both  parties  agree  to  consider  such 
decision  as  final  and  conclusive. 

ARTICLE  IV.  Whereas  neither  that  point  of  the  high-lands  lying 
due  north  from  the  source  of  the  river  St.  Croix,  and  designated  in 
the  former  treaty  of  peace  between  the  two  powsrs,  as  the  north 
west  angle  of  Nova  Scotia,  nor  the  northwesternmost  head  of  Con 
necticut  river,  has  yet  been  ascertained  :  And  whereas  that  part  of 
the  boundary  line  between  the  dominions  of  the  two  powers,  which 
extends  from  the  source  of  the  river  fit.  Croix,  directly  north,  to 
the  above  mentioned  northwest  angle  of  Nova  Scotia  :  thence,  along 
the  said  high  lands,  which  divide  those  rivers,  that  empty  them 
selves  into  the  river  St.  Lawrence,  from  those  which  fall  into  the 
Atlantic  ocean,  to  the  northwestern<;icst  head  of  Connecticut  river  ; 
thence,  down,  along  the  middle  of  that  river,  to  the  forty-fifth  de 
gree  of  north  lattitude  ;  thence,  by  a  line  due  west,  on  said  latitude, 
until  it  strikes  the  river  Iroquois,  or  Cataraguy,  has  not  yet  been, 
surveyed;  It  is  agreed,  that,  for  these  several  purposes,  three 
commissioners  shall  be  appointed,  sworn,  (mutatis  mutandis)  and 
authorized  to  act  exactly  in  the  manner  directed  with  respect  to 
those  mentioned  in  the  next  preceding  article  ;  the  said  commis 
sioners  shall  meet  at  — ,  and  shall  have  power  to  adjourn  to 

such  other  place  or  places  as  they  shall  think  fit.  The  said  com 
missioners,  or  a  majority  of  them,  shall  have  power  to  ascertain  and 
determine  the  points  above  mentioned,  in  conformity  with  the  provi 
sions  of  the  said  treaty  of  peace,  and  shall  cause  the'boundary  afore 
said,  from  the  source  of  the  river  St.  Croix  to  the  river  Iroquois, 
or  Cataraguy,  to  be  surveyed  and  marked  according  to  the  said 
provisions.  The  said  commissioners,  or  a  majority  of  them,  shall 
make  a  map  of  the  said  boundary,  and  annex  to  it  a  declaration,  un 
der  their  hands  and  seals,  certifying  it  to  be  the  true  map  of  the 


20 

said  boundary,  and  particularizing  the  latitude  and  longitude  ot'  the 
northwest  angle  of  Nova  Scotia  ;  of  the  northwesternmost  head  of 
Connecticut  river,  and  of  such  other  points  of  the  said  boundary  as 
they  may  deem  proper  ;  and  both  parties  agree  to  consider  such 
map  and  declaration  as  finally  and  conclusively  fixing  the  said  boun 
dary. 

ARTICLE  V.  Whereas,  by  the  former  treaty  of  peace,  that  por 
tion  of  the  boundary  of  the  United  States  from  the  point  where  the 
forty-fifth  degree  of  north  latitude  strikes  the  river  Iroquois,  or 
Cataraguy,  to  the  lake  Superior,  was  declared  to  be  along  the  mid 
dle  of  said  river,  into  lake  Ontario,  through  the  middle  of  said  lake, 
until  it  strikes  the  communication  by  water  between  that  lake  and 
lake  Erie  ;  thence,  along  the  middle  of  said  communication,  into 
lake  Erie  ;  through  the  middle  of  said  lake  until  it  arrives  at  the 
water  communication  into  the  lake  Huron  ;  thence,  through  the 
middle  of  said  lake,  to  the  water  communication  between  that  lake 
and  lake  Superior  :  And  whereas  doubts  have  arisen  what  was  the 
middle  of  the  said  river,  lakes,  and  water  communications,  and  whe 
ther  certain  islands  lying  in  the  same  were  within  the  dominions  of 
his  Britannic  Majesty  or  of  the  United  States  :  In  order,  therefore, 
finally  to  decide  these  questions,  they  shall  be  referred  to  three 
commissioners,  to  be  appointed,  sworn,  (mutatis  mutandis)  and  au 
thorized  to  act  exactly  in  the  manner  directed  with  respect  to  those 
mentioned  in  the  next  preceding  articte.  The  said  commissioners, 

shall  meet,  in  the  first  instance,  at ,  and  shall  have  power  to 

adjourn  to  such  other  place,  or  places,  as  they  shall  think  fit.  The 
said  commissioners,  or  a  majority  of  them,  shall,  by  a  declaration 
under  their  hands  and  seals,  designate  the  boundary  through  the 
said  river,  lakes,  and  water  communications,  and  decide  to  which  of 
the  two  contracting  parties  the  several  islands  lying  within  the  said 
rivers,  lakes,  and  water  communications,  do  respectively  belong,  in 
conformity  with  the*  true  intent  of  the  former  treaty  of  peace. 
And  both  parties  agree  to  consider  such  decision  as  final  and  con 
clusive. 

ARTICLE  VI.  It  is  further  agreed,  that  the  said  last-mentioned 
commissioners,  after  they  shall  have  executed  the  duties  assigned 
to  them  in  the  preceding  article,  shall  be,  and  they,  or  a  majority  of 
them,  are  hereby,  authorized,  upon  their  oaths,  impartially  to  fix 
and  determine,  according  to  the  true  intent  of  the  said  former  trea 
ty  of  peace,  that  part  of  the  boundary  between  the  dominions  of  the 
two  powers  which  extends  from  the  water  communication  between 
lake  Huron  and  lake  Superior,  to  the  most  northwestern  point  of 
the  Lake  of  the  Woods  ;  to  decide  to  which  of  the  two  parties  the 
several  islands  lying  in  the  lakes,  water  communications,  and  rivers, 
forming  the  said  boundary,  do  respectively  belong,  in  conformity 
with  the  true  intent  of  the  said  former  treaty  of  peace,  and  to  cause 
such  parts  of  the  said  boundary  as  require  it  to  be  surveyed  and 
marked.  The  said  commissioners,  or  a  majority  of  them,  shall,  by 
-a  declaration,  under  their  hands  and  seals,  designate  the  boundary 


SI 

aforesaid,  state  their  decision  on  the  questions  thus  referred  t<n 
them,  and  particularize  the  latitude  and  longitude  of  the  most  north 
western  point  of  the  Lake  of  the  Woods,  and  of  such  other  points 
of  the  said  boundary  as  they  may  deem  proper.  And  both  parties 
agree  to  consider  such  decision  as  final  and  conclusive. 

ARTICLE  VII.  The  several  boards  of  commissioners  mentioned  in 
the  four  preceding  articles  shall,  respectively,  have  power  to  ap 
point  a  secretary,  and  to  employ  such  surveyors,  or  other  persons, 
as  they  shall  judge  necessary.  Duplicates  of  their  respective  de- 
claratrons  and  decisions,  of  the  statement  of  their  accounts,  and  ot 
the  journal  of  their  proceedings,  shall  be  delivered  by  them  to  the 
agents  of  his  Britannic  Majesty,  and  to  the  agents  of  the  United 
States,  who  may  be  respectively  appointed,  and  authorized  to  man 
age  the  business  in  behalf  of  their  respective  governments.  The 
said  commissioners  shall  be  respectively  paid  in  such  manner  as  shall 
be  agreed  between  the  two  parties  ;  such  agreement  being  to  be 
settled  at  the  time  of  the  exchange  of  the  ratifications  of  this  treaty. 
And  all  other  expenses  attending  the  said  commissions  shall  be  de 
frayed,  jointly,  by  the  two  parties,  the  same  being  previously  as 
certained  and  allowed  by  a  majority  of  the  commissioners.  And  in 
the  case  of  death,  sickness,  resignation,  or  necessary  absence,  the 
place  of  every  such  commissioner,  respectively,  shall  be  supplied 
in  the  same  manner  as  such  commissioner  was  first  appointed,  and 
the  new  commissioner  shall  take  the  same  oath  or  affirmation,  and 
do  the  same  duties. 

It  is  further  agreed  between  the  two  parties,  that,  in  case  any  of 
the  islands  mentioned  in  any  of  the  preceding  articles,  which  were 
in  the  possession  of  one  of  the  parties  prior  to  the  commencement 
of  the  present  war  between  the  two  countries,  should,  by  the  de 
cision  of  any  ot  the  boards  of  commissioners  aforesaid,  fall  within 
the  dominions  of  the  other  party,  all  grants  of  lands  made  previous 
to  that  time,  by  the  party  having  had  such  possession,  shall  be  as 
valid  as  if  such  island  or  islands  had,  by  such  decision  or  decisions, 
been  adjudged  to  be  within  the  dominions  of  the  party  having  had 
such  possession. 

ARTICLE  VIII.  It  is  agreed  that  a  line,  drawn  due  north  or 
south,  (as  the  case  may  be)  from  the  most  northwestern  point  of 
the  Lake  of  the  Woods,  until  it  shall  intersect  the  forty-ninth  par 
allel  of  north  latitude,  and  from  the  point  of  such  intersection,  due 
west,  along  and  with  the  said  parallel,  shall  be  the  dividing  line 
between  his  majesty's  territories  and  those  of  the  United  States  to 
the  westward  of  the  said  lake,  as  far  as  their  said  respective  ter 
ritories  extend  in  that  quarter ;  and  that  the  said  line  shall,  to  that 
extent,  form  the  southern  boundary  of  his  majesty's  said  territo 
ries,  and  the  northern  boundary  of  the  said  territories  of  the 
United  States  :  Provided,  that  nothing  in  the  present  article  shall 
be  construed  to  extend  to  the  northwest  coast  of  America,  or  to 
the  territories  belonging  to,  or  claimed  by,  either  party,  on  the 
continent  of  America,  to  the  westward  of  the  Stony  Mountain* 


22 

ARTICLE  IX.  The  United  States  of  America  engage  to  put  aw 
end,  immediately  after  the  ratification  of  the  present  treaty,  to 
hostilities  with  all  the  tribes  or  nations  of  Indians  with  whom  they 
may  be  at  war  at  the  time  of  such  ratification,  and  forthwith  to 
restore  to  such  tribes  or  nations,  respectively,  all  the  possessions, 
rights,  and  privileges,  which  they  may  have  enjoyed  or  been  en 
titled  to  in  1811,  previous  to  such  hostilities. 

Provided  always,  that  such  tribes  or  nations  shall  agree  to  de 
sist  from  all  hostilities  against  the  United  States  of  America^  their 
citizens  and  subjects,  upon  the  ratification  of  the  present  treaty 
being  notified  to  such  tribes  or  nations,  and  shall  so  desist  accord 
ingly. 

And  his  Britannic  majesty  engages  on  his  part,  to  put  an  end, 
immediately  after  the  ratification  of  the  present  treaty,  to  hostili 
ties  with  all  the  tribes  or  nations  of  Indians  with  whom  he  may  be 
at  war  at  the  time  of  such  ratification,  and  forthwith  to  restore  to 
such  tribes,  or  nations,  respectively,  all  the  possessions,  rights,  and 
privileges,  which  they  may  have  enjoyed  or  been  entitled  to  in 
1811,  previous  to  such  hostilities. 

Provided  always,  that  such  tribes  or  nations  shall  agree  to  desist 
from  all  hostilities  against  his  Britannic  majesty  and  his  subjects, 
upon  the  ratification  of  the  present  treaty  being  notified  to  such 
tribes  or  nations,  and  shall  so  desist  accordingly. 

ARTICLE  X.  His  Britannic  majesty  and  the  United  States  shall, 
by  all  the  means  in  their  power,  restrain  the  Indians  living  within 
their  respective  dominions  from  committing  hostilities  against  the 
territory,  citizens,  or  subjects,  of  the  other  party  :  and  both  powers 
also  agree  and  mutually  pledge  themselves,  if  at  any  time  war 
should  unhappily  break  out  between  them,  not  to  employ  any  In 
dians,  nor  to  admit  of  their  aid  and  co-operatiori  in  the  prosecu 
tion  of  the  war  against  the  other  party. 

ARTICLE  XI.  Each  party  shall  effectually  exclude  from  its  naval 
and  commercial  service  all  seamen,  seafaring,  or  other  persons, 
subjects  or  citizens  of  the  other  party,  not  naturalized  by  the  re 
spective  governments  of  the  two  parties,  before  the day  of 

.  seamen  or  other  persons,  subjects  of  either  party,  who 

shall  desert  from  public  or  private  ships  or  vessels,  shall,  when 
found  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  other  party,  be  surrendered, 

provided  they  be  demanded  within from  the  time  of  their 

desertion. 

No  person  whatever  shall,  upon  the  high  seas,  and  without  the 
jurisdiction  of  either  party,  be  demanded  or  taken  out  of  any  ship 
or  vessel,  belonging  to  subjects  or  citizens  of  any  of  the  parties, 
by  the  public  or  private  armed  ships  or  vessels  belonging  to,  or  in 
the  service  of,  the  other,  unless  such  person  be,  at  the  time,  in 
the  actual  employment  of  an  enemy  of  such  other  party.  This 

article  shall  continue  in  force  for  the  term  of years,     Nothing 

in  this  article  contained  shall  be  construed  thereafter  to  affect  or 
impair  the  rights  of  either  party. 


23 

ARTICLE  XII.  If  either  of  the  contracting  parties  shall  hereafter  be 
engaged  in  war  against  any  third  power,  to  which  war  the  other  of 
the  parties  shall  remain  neutral,  it  is  agreed  that  every  vessel  of  the 
neutral  party,  sailing  for  a  port  or  place  belonging  to  the  enemy 
of  the  belligerent,  without  knowing  that  the  same  is  besieged, 
blockaded,  or  invested,  may  be  turned  away  from  such  port  or 
place,  but  shall  not  be  detained,  nor  her  cargo,  if  not  contraband, 
be  confiscated,  unless,  after  such  notice,  she  shall  again  attempt  to 
tenter :  but  she  shall  be  permitted  to  go  to  any  other  port  or  place 
she  may  think  proper  ;  nor  shall  any  vessel  or  goods  of  either 
party,  that  may  have  entered  into  such  port  or  place  before  the 
same  was  besieged,  blockaded,  or  invested  by  the  other,  and  be 
found  therein  after  the  reduction  or  surrender  of  such  pince,  be 
liable  to  confiscation,  but  shall  be  returned  to  the  proprietors 
thereof:  and,  in  order  to  determine  what  characterizes  a  blockaded 
port,  that  denomination  is  given  only  to  a  port  where  there  is,  by 
the  disposition  of  the  power  which  attacks  it  with  ships,  stationary, 
or  sufficiently  near,  an  evident  danger  in  entering. 

ARTICLE  XIII.  It  is  agreed  that  indemnity  shall  be  made  by  his 
Britannic  majesty  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  for  all  losses 
and  damages  sustained  by  them  during  the  late  war  between  Great 
Britain  and  France,  and  prior  to  the  commencement  of  the  present 
war,  by  reason  of  irregular  or  illegal  captures,  seizures,  or  con 
demnations  of  vessels  and  other  property,  under  colour  of  autho- 
rity$  contrary  to  the  known  and  established  rules  of  the  law  of 
nations.  And  it  is  also  agreed,  that  indemnity  shall  be  m:?de  by 
each  of  the  contracting  parties,  to  the  subjects  or  citizens  of  the 
othej;  party,  for  all  losses  and  damages  sustained  subsequent  to  the 
commencement  of  the  present  war,  by  reason  of  the  seizure  or 
condemnation  of  the  vessels  or  cargoes,  belonging  to  the  subjects 
or  citizens  of  the  one  party,  which,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  com.' 
merce,  happened  at  the  commencement  of  hostilities  to  be  in  the 
ports  of  the  other  party  ;  and  by  reason  of  the  destruction  of  un 
fortified  towns,  and  the  pillage  or  destruction  of  private  property, 
and  the  enticement  and  carrying  away  of  negroes,  contrary  to  the 
known  and  established  rules  and  usages  of  war  between  civilized 
nations. 

.  It  is  agreed,  that,  for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  indemnities 
due  by  each  contracting  party,  in  conformity  with  the  provisions 
of  this  article,  commissioners  shall  be  appointed  in  the  following 
manner,  viz  :  one  commissioner  shall  be  named  by  his  Britannic 
majesty,  and  one  by  the  President  of  the  United  States,  by  and 
with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  thereof;  and  the  said 
two  commissioners  shall  agree  in  the  choice  of  a  third  ;  or,  if  they 
cannot  agree,  they  shall  each  propose  one  person,  and  of  the  two 
names  so  proposed,  one  shall  be  taken  by  lot,  in  the  presence  of 
the  two  original  commissioners,  and  the  three  commissioners  thus 
appointed,  shall' be  sworn,  and  authorized  and  empowered,  im 
partially,  to  examine  into  all  such  claims  and  complaints,  and  to 
determine  the  indemnities  which  may  be  justly  due  for  the  same* 


24 

The  said  commissioners  shall  meet  at and  shall  have 

power  to  adjourn  to  such  other  place,  or  places,  as  they  shall 
think  ik  ;  they  shall  also  have  power  to  appoint  a  secretary,  swear 
and  examine  witnesses,  and  have  all  assistance  and  facilities  neces 
sary  to  effect  the  object  of  their  appointment. 

The  award  of  the  said  commissioners,  or  a  majority  of  them, 
shall  in  all  cases  be  final  and  conclusive,  both  as  to  the  justice  of 
the  claim,  and  as  to  the  amount  of  the  sum  to  be  paid  to  the  claim 
ant  and  claimants.  And  his  Britannic  majesty  and  the  United  States 
agree  and  undertake  to  cause  the  sums  so  awarded  to  be  due  by 
them,  respectively,  to  be  paid  in  specie,  to  such  claimant  and 
claimants  without  deduction,  and  at  such  place  or  places,  time  or 
times,  as  shall  be  awarded  by  the  commissioners. 

ARTICLE  XIV.  It  is  also  agreed,  that  no  person  or  persons,  re 
siding  within  the  dominions  of  one  of  the  parties,  who  may  have 
taken  part  with  the  other  party,  in  the  war  between  Great  Britain 
and  the  United  States,  shall,  on  that  account,  be  prosecuted,  mo- 
Jested,  or  annoyed,  either  in  his  person  or  property  ;  and  that  all 
such  persons  disposed  to  remove  into  the  dominions  of  the  other 

party,  shall  be  allowed  the  term  of months,  freely  to  sell 

their  property,  of  every  nature  and  description  whatsoever,  and 
to  remove  accordingly. 

ARTICLE  XV.  This  treaty,  when  the  same  shall  have  been  rati 
fied  on  both  sides,  and  the  respective  ratifications  mutually  ex 
changed,  shall  be  binding  on  both  parties,  and  the  ratification  shall 

be  exchanged  at in  the  space  of months  from  this  day., 

or  sooner,  if  possible. 

In  faith  whereof,  we,  the  respective  plenipotentiaries,  have 
signed  this  treaty,  and  have  thereunto  affixed  our  seals, 

Done  at  Ghent,  the day  of one  thousand  eight  hun 
dred  and  fourteen. 

British  Note,  No.  7. 

The  undersigned  have  had  the  honour  to  receive  the  note  and 
project  of  a  treaty  of  peace  presented  by  the  American  plenipo 
tentiaries  on  the  10th  instant. 

The  undersigned  are  of  opinion  that  the  most  convenient  course 
for  them  to  adopt  will  be  to  return  this  project  with  their  marginal 
alterations  and  suggestions  on  the  several  articles  of  which  it  is 
composed.  The  existing  differences  between  the  two  governments 
will  thus  be  brought  more  immediately  in  view,  and  it  is  hoped 
that,  by  confining  the  discussions  to  one  project,  the  negotiations 
may  sooner  be  brought  to  a  favourable  conclusion.  The  first  part 
of  the  10th  article  appears  to  be  unnecessary,  and  the  stipulation 
contained  in  the  whole  of  it  altogether  inadmissible.  Though  his 
majesty's  government  sincerely  hopes  that  a  renewal  of  the  war 
between  his  majesty  and  the  United  States  may  be  far  distant,  yet 
the  undersigned  cannot  consent  to  enter  into  any  engagement  as  to 
what  shall  be  the  conduct  of  their  government,  if  such  a  war  should 
nnfortunately  occur. 


With  respect  to  the  1 1th  and  12th  articles,  his  majesty's  govern 
ment  has  strongly  manifested  its  sincere  disposition  to  the  speedy 
restoration  of  peace,  by  agreeing,  under  all  the  present  circum 
stances,  to  conclude  the  treaty  without  any  stipulation  on  the  points 
ta  which  these  articles  relate.  No  advantage  can  arise  from  en 
tering  into  discussions,  upon  a  successful  result  of  which  the  Ame 
rican  plenipotentiaries,  have  stated,  more  than  once,  that  they  will 
not  make  the  conclusion  of  the  peace  at  all  to  depend. 

With  respect  to  the  13th  article,  the  indemniiications  proposed 
by  it,  as  applied  to  the  actual  circumstances  of  the  war,  are  so 
unprecedented  and  objectionable,  that  any  further  perseverance  of 
the  American  plenipotentiaries  in  requiring  them,  is  not  anticipated 
by  the  undersigned  :  if,  however,  contrary  to  expectation,  indem 
nifications  of  this  kind  should  be  required,  all  hope  of  bringing  the 
negotiations  to  a  favourable  issue  must  prove  abortive.  The  un 
dersigned  are  instructed  explicitly  to  declare,  that  as  their  go 
vernment  makes  no  claim  on  account  of  losses  sustained  by  British 
subjects  arising  out  of  a  war  declared  by  the  United  States,  so 
neither  can  their  government  agree  to  make  compensation  for  losses, 
sustained  in  such  a  war  by  the  American  people. 

The  undersigned  are,  however,  willing  to  agree  to  a  stipulation 
by  which  it  shall  be  provided,  that  the  courts  of  justice  in  each 
country  sh'all  be  open  to  the  just  demands  of  the  respective  peo 
ple,  and  that  no  obstruction  be  thrown  in  the  way  of  their  recover) 
of  the  rights,  claims,  or  debts,  of  any  kind  respectively  due  or  be 
longing  to  them. 

With  respect  to  the  14th  article,  the  undersigned  do  not  concur 
In  the  necessity  for  any  such  stipulation  as  is  there  proposed. 

The  undersigned  think  proper  to  add,  that,  with  respect  to  par 
ticular  alterations  suggested  by  them  in  various  articles  of  the 
project,  they  are  ready  to  enter  into  such  explanations  as  may  be 
required  of  them,  with  the  sincere  desire  of  endeavouring  to  re 
concile  the  pretensions  brought  forward  on  the  part  of  their  re 
spective  governments. 

The  undersigned  have  forborne  to  insist  upon  the  basis  of  uti 
possidetis,  to  the  advantage  of  which  they  consider  their  county 
fully  entitled.  But  should  this  negotiation  terminate  in  a  way 
contrary  to  their  hopes  and  just  expectations,  they  must  protest 
against  any  claim  or  demand  being  urged  by  the  American  govern 
ment  in  any  future  negotiation,  in  consequence  of  the  facilities 
which  his  majesty's  government  have  now  shown  themselves  wil 
ling  to  afford  to  the  speedy  restoration  of  peace. 

The  undersigned  avail  themselves  of  the  present  opportunity  to 
renejv  to  the  plenipotentiaries  of  the  United  States  the  assurances 
of  their  high  consideration. 

GAMBIER, 

HENRY  GOULDBURN, 

WILLIAM  ADAMS. 

Ghent,  November  26th, 


26 


Project  of  a  Treaty,  as  returned  by  the  British  to  the  American  Plem*. 
potentiaries,  26th  November  ^  1814. 

Treaty  of  Peace  and  Amity,  between  his  Britannic  Majesty,  and 
the  United  States  of  America. 


The  following  marginal  remarks 
and  alterations  were  made  and 
proposed  by  the  British  pleni 
potentiaries. 
Note.     It  is  proposed  to  omit 

altogether  the  words  that  are 

nnderlined. 


ARTICLE  1. 


(1)  places  or 

(2)  after  the  exchange  of  the  ra 
tifications  as  herein  after  men 
tioned. 

*  It  is  thought  more  advisable 


His  Britannic  majesty  and  the 
United  States  of  America,  desi 
rous  of  terminatingthe  war  which 
has  unhappily  subsisted  between 
the  two  countries,  and  of  restor 
ing,  upon  principles  of  perfect  re 
ciprocity,  peace,  friendship,  and 
^ood  understanding,  between 
them,  have,  for  that  purpose,  ap 
pointed  their  respective  plenipo 
tentiaries,  that  is  to  say,  his  Bri 
tannic  majesty  on  his  part  has 
appointed  the  right  honourable 
James  lord  Gambier,  admiral 
of  the  White  Squadron,  of  his 
majesty's  fleet,  Henry  Goulburn, 
esq.  a  member  of  the  Imperial 
Parliament,  and  under  Secretary 
of  State,  and  William  Adams, 
esq.  Doctor  of  Civil  Laws  ;  and 
the  President  of  the  United  States, 
by  and  with  advice  and  consent  of 
the  Senate  thereof,  has  appointed 
John  Quincy  Adams,  James  A. 
Bayard,  Henry  Clay,  Jonathan 
Russell,  and  Albert Gallatin,  citi 
zens  of  the  United  States,  who, 
after  a  reciprocal  communication 
of  their  respective  full  powers, 
have  agreed  upon  the  following 
articles. 

ARTICLE  I.  There  shall  be  a 
firm  and  universal  peace  between 
his  Britannic  majesty  and  the 
United  States  and  between  their 
respective  countries,  territories, 
cities,  towns,  and  people,  of  eve 
ry  degree,  without  exception  of 
(1)  persons  or  places.  All  hos 
tilities,  both  by  sea  and  land, 
shall  immediately  cease.  (2)  Ml 
prisoners  on  both  sides  shall  be  set 
at  liberty.*  All  territory,  places, 
and  possessions,  without  excep- 


that  the  provision  respecting  pri 
soners  of  war,  should  be  the  sub 
ject  ot*  a  separate  article  ;  the 
draft  of  an  article  on  this  subject 
is  subjoined. 

(1)  belonging  to 

(2)  and  taken  by 

(3)  of  the 

(4)  originally  captured  in  the  said 
forts  or   places,  and  which  shall 
remain    therein    upon    the    ex 
change  of  the  ratifications,  of  this 
treaty. 


(5)  as  far  as  may  be  practicable. 

ARTICLE  II. 
:*6)  shall  have  been  exchanged, 


7)  exchange  of  the  ratiiications 


H")  the  period  of  the  exchange 
of  the  ratifications, 


i'f>)  the  same  term  of for 

ail  parts  of  the  Mediterranean. 


tion,  taken  by  (1)  either  party 
from  (2)  the  other  during  the 
war,  or  which  may  be  taken 
after  the  signing  of  this  treaty, 
shall  be  restored  without  delay, 
and  without  causing  any  destruc 
tion,  or  carrying  away  any  (3) 
artillery  or  other  public  proper 
ty,  or  any  slaves  or  other  pri 
vate  property,  (4)  and  all  ar 
chives,,  records,  deeds,  and  pa 
pers,  either  of  a  public  nature 
or  belonging  to  private  persons, 
which,  in  the  course  of  the  war, 
may  have  fallen  into  the  hands  of 
the  officers  of  either  party,  shall 
be  (5)  forthwith  restored,  and  de 
livered  to  the  proper  authorities 
and  persons -to  whom  they  re 
spectively  belong. 

ARTICLE  II.  Immediately  af 
ter  the  respective  ratifications  of 
this  treaty,  (6)  orders  shall  be 
sent  to  the  armies,  squadrons, 
officers,  subjects,  and  citizens, 
of  the  two  powers,  to  cease 
from  all  hostilities  :  and  to  pre 
vent  all  causes  of  complaint, 
which  might  arise  on  account  of 
the  prizes  which  may  be  taken 
at  sea,  after  the  (7)  signing  ot 
this  treaty,  it  is  reciprocally 
agreed,  that  the  vessels  and  ef 
fects  which  may  be  taken  in  the 
Channel,  and  in  the  North  Seas, 

after  the  space  of from 

(8)  that  of  the  signature  hereof, 
shall  be  restored  on  each  side  ; 

that  the  term  shall  be 

from  the  Channel  and  the  North 
Seas  to  the  Canary  islands  inclu 
sively,  (9)  whether  in  the  ocean 

or  the  Mediterranean  :  of 

from  the  said  Canary  Islands  to 
the  equinoctial  line  or  equator, 

and   of in   all  other 

parts  of  the  world  without  ex 
ception. 


28 


ARTICLE  TIL  Whereas  it  wa3 
stipulated  by  the  second  article 
in  the  treaty  of  peace  of  1783, 
between  his  Britannic  majesty 
and  the  United  States  of  Ameri 
ca,  that  the  boundary  of  the 
United  States  should  compre 
hend  "  all  islands  within  twenty 
leagues  of  any  part  of  the  shores 
of  the  United  States,  and  lying 
between  lines  to  be  drawn  due 
east  from  the  points  where  the 
aforesaid  boundaries  between 
Nova  Scotia  on  the  one  part,  and 
East  Florida  on  the  other,  shall, 
respectively,  touch  the  Bay  of 
Fundy,  and  the  Atlantic  ocean, 
excepting  such  islands  as  now 
are,  or  heretofore  .have  been, 
within  the  limits  of  Nova  Sco 
tia  :"  And  whereas  claims  have 
been  made  by  the  government 
of  the  United  States  to  certain 
islands  in  the  Bay  of  Fundy, 
which  said  islands  are  claimed 
as  belonging  to  his  Britannic 
majesty,  as  having  been  at  the 
time  of,  and  previous  to,  the 
aforesaid  treaty  of  1783,  within 
the  limits  of  the  province  of  No 
va  Scotia  :  In  order,  therefore, 
finally  to  decide  upon  these 
claims,  it  is  agreed  that  they 
shall  be  referred  to  two  com 
missioners,  to  be  appointed  in 
the  following  manner,  viz.  one 
commissioner  shall  be  appointed 
by  his  Britannic  majesty,  and 
one  by  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  by  and  with  the 
advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate 
thereof,  and  the  said  two  com 
missioners,  so  appointed,  shall 
be  sworn  impartially  to  examine 
and  decide  upon  the  said  claims, 
according  to  such  evidence  as 
shall  be  laid  before  them  on  the 
part  of  his  Britannic  majesty  and 
of  the  United  States  reppective- 


ARTICLE  III.    Whereas,   that 
portion  of  the  boundary  between 
the   dominions   of  his   Britannic 
majesty  in  North  America,  and 
those  of  the  United  States,  from 
the  mouth  of  the  river  St.   Croix 
(as  the  said  mouth  was  ascertain* 
ed  by  the  commissioners  appoint™ 
edfor  that  purpose)  to  the  Bay  of 
Fundy,  has  not  yet  been  regulated 
and  determined  :    And   whereas , 
the  respective  rights  and  claims 
of  his  Britannic  Majesty  and  of 
the   United  States,  to  the  several 
islands  in  the  Bay   of  Passama- 
quoddy,  and    to    the    island    of 
Grand  Menan,  have  never  been 
finally  adjusted  and  determined, 
the  said  islands  being  claimed  on 
the  part  of  the  United  States  as 
lying   within    twenty   leagues  of 
their  shores,  and  south  of  a  line 
drawn  due  east  from  the  mouth  of 
the  river  St.  Croix,  and  on  the 
part  of  his  Britannic  majesty,  as 
having  been,  at  or  before  the  for 
mer  treaty  of  peace,  between  the 
two  countries,  within  the    limits 
of  the  province  of  Nova  Scotia  : 
In  order,  therefore,  finally  to  de 
cide  these  several  questions,  it  is 
agreed  that  they  shall  be  referred 
to  three  commissioners,  to  be  ap 
pointed  in  the  following  manner , 
•viz.  one  commissioner  shall  be  ap 
pointed  by  his  Britannic  majesty, 
and  one  by  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  by  and  with  the  ad 
vice   and  consent   of  the  Senate 
thereof,  and  the  said  two  commis 
sioners  shall  have  power  to  choose 
a  third,  and  if  they  cannot  agree 
they  shall  each  propose  one  person, 
and  of  the  two  names,  so  proposed, 
one  shall  be  drawn  by  lot,  in  the 
presence  of  the  two  original  com 
missioners,  and  the  three  commis 
sioners,    so  appointed,    shall    be. 
sworn  impartially  to  examine 


29 


all 


The    said 
meet   at 


commissioners 
,   and 


shall  have  power  to  adjourn  to 
euch  other  place,  or  places,  as 
they  shall  think  fit.  The  said 
commissioners  shall,  by  a  decla 
ration  or  report,  under  their 
hands  and  seals,  decide  to  which 
of  the  two  contracting  parties 
the  several  islands  aforesaid  do 
respectively  belong,  in  conform 
ity  with  the  true  intent  of  the 
said  treaty  of  peace  of  1783: 
and  if  the  said  commissioners 
shall  agree  in  their  decision, 
both  parties  shall  consider  such 
decision  as  final  and  conclusive. 
It  is  further  agreed,  that,  in 
the  event  of  the  two  commis 
sioners  differing  upon  all,  or  any, 
of  the  matters  so  referred  to 
them,  or  in  the  event  of  both,  or 
cither  of  the  said  commissioners 
refusing,  or  declining,  or  wilful 
ly  omitting,  to  act  as  such,  they 
shall  make,  jointly  or  separate 
ly,  a  report,  or  reports,  as  well 
to  the  government  of  his  Britan 
nic  majesty  as  to  that  of  the 
United  States,  stating,  in  detail, 
the  points  on  which  they  differ, 
and  the  grounds  upon  which 
their  respective  opinions  have 
been  formed  ;  or  the  grounds 
upon  which  they,  or  either  of 
them,  have  so  refused,  declined, 
or  omitted  to  act.  And  his  Bri 
tannic  majesty,  and  the  govern 
ment  of  the  United  States,  here 
by  agree  to  refer  the  report,  or 
reports  of  the  said  commission 
ers,  to  some  friendly  sovereign 
or  state,  to  be  then  named  for 
that  purpose,  and  who  shall  be 
requested  to  decide  on  the  dif 
ferences  which  may  be  stated  in 
the  said  report,  or  reports,  or 
upon  the  report  of  one  com 
missioner,  together  with  the 


decide  the  said  questions,  accord 
ing  to  such  evidence  as  shall  re 
spectively  be  laid  before  them  on 
the  part  of  the  British  govern 
ment,  and  of  the  United  States. 
The  said  commissioners  shall  meet 
at 9  and  shall  have  pow 
er  to  adjourn  to  such  other  place, 
or  places,  as  they  shall  think  Jit. 
The  said  commissioners,  or  a  ma 
jority  of  them,  shall,  by  a  decla 
ration  under  their  hands  and 
seals,  determine  the  boundary 
aforesaid  from  the  mouth  of  the 
river  St.  Croix  to  the  Bay  of  Fun- 
dy,  and  decide  to  "which  of  the 
two  contracting  parties  the  several 
islands  aforesaid  do  respectively 
belong,  in  conformity  with  the 
true  intent  of  the  former  treaty 
of  peace.  And  both  parties  agree 
to  consider  such  decision  as  final 
and  conclusive 


grounds  upon  which  the  other 
commissioner  shall  have  so  re 
fused,  declined,  or  omitted  to 
act,  as  the  case  may  be.  And  if 
the  commissioner  so  refusing, 
declining,  or  omitting  to  act, 
shall  also  wilfully  omit  to  state 
the  grounds  upon  which  he  has 
so  done  in  such  manner  that  the 
said  statement  may  be  referred 
to  such  friendly  sovereign  or 
state,  together  with  the  report 
of  such  other  commissioner, 
then  such  sovereign,  or  state, 
shall  decide,  ex  parte,  upon  the 
said  report  alone.  And  bis  Bri 
tannic  majesty,  and  the  govern 
ment  of  the  United  States,  en 
gage  to  consider  the  decision  of 
such  friendly  sovereign  or  state, 
to  be  final  and  conclusive  on-  all 
the  matters  so  referred. 
ARTICLE  IV. 


ARTICLE  IV.  Whereas,  nei 
ther  that  point  of  the  Highlands 
lying  due  north  from  the  source 
of  the  river  St.  Croix,  and  de 
signated  in  the  former  treaty  of 
peace  between  the  two  powers 
as  the  northwest  angle  of  Nova 
Scotia,  nor  the  northwestern- 
most  head  of  Connecticut  river, 
has  yet  been  ascertained  ;  and 
whereas  that  part  of  the  bound 
ary  line  between  the  dominions 
of  the  two  powers,  which  ex 
tends  from  the  source  of  the  ri 
ver  St.  Croix  directly  north  to 
the  above  mentioned  northwest 
angle  of  Nova  Scotia ;  thence, 
along  the  said  Highlands,  which 
divide  those  rivers  thac  empty 
themselves  into  the  river  St. 
Lawrence,  from  those  which 
fall  into  the  Atlantic  ocean,  to 
the  northwesternmost  head  of 
Connecticut  river ;  thence,  down 
along  the  middle  of  that  river  to 
the  forty-fifth  degree  of  north 
latitude  ;  thence,  by  a  line  due 


31 


(1)  two 


(2)  unless  otherwise  specified 
in  the  present  article, 


(3)  of  17 


(4)  And,  in  the  event  of  the 
said  two  commissioners  differing, 
or  both  or  either  of  them  refus 
ing,  declining,  or  wilfully  omit 
ting  to  act,  such  reports,  decla 
rations,  or  statements,  shall  be 
made  by  them,  or  either  of  them; 
and  such  reference  to  a  friendly 
sovereign  or  state  shall  be  made, 
in  all  respects,  as  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  third  article  is  con 
tained,  and  in  as  full  a  manner  as 
if  the  same  was  herein  repeated. 

ARTICLE  V . 


west,  on  said  latitude,  until  it 
strikes  the  river  Iroquois,  or 
Cataraguy,  has  not  yet  been  sur 
veyed.  It  is  agreed  that,  for 
these  several  purposes  three  (1) 
commissioners  shall  be  appoint 
ed,  sworn,  (mutatis  mutandis^) 
and  authorized  to  act  exactly  in 
the  manner  directed  with  re 
spect  to  those  mentioned  in  the 
next  preceding  article.(2)  The 
said  commissioners  shall  meet 
at ,  and  shall  have  pow 
er  to  adjourn  to  such  other  place 
or  places  as  they  shall  think  fit. 
The  said  commissioners,  or  a 
majority  of  them,  shall  have 
power  to  ascertain  and  deter 
mine  the  points  abovementioned, 
in  conformity  with  the  provi 
sions  of  the  said  treaty  of  peace, 
(3)  and  shall  cause  the  boundary 
aforesaid,  from  the  source  of  the 
river  St.  Croix  to  the  river  Iro- 
quois,  or  Cataraguy,  to  be  sur 
veyed  and  marked  according  to 
the  said  provisions. 

The  said  commissioners,  or  a 
majority  of  them,  shall  make  a 
map  of  the  said  boundary,  and 
annex  to  it  a  declaration,  under 
their  hands  and  seals,  certifying 
it  to  be  the  true  map  of  the  said 
boundary,  and  particularizing 
the  latitude  and  longitude  of  the 
northwest  angle  of  Nova  Scotia, 
of  the  northwesternmost  head 
of  Connecticut  river,  and  ofsuch 
other  points  of  the  said  boundary 
as  they  may  deem  prpper  ;  and 
both  parties  agree  to  consider 
such  map  and  declaration  as 
finally  and  conclusively  fixing 
the  said  boundary. (4) 

ARTICLE  V.  Whereas,  by  the 
former  treaty  of  peace,  that  por 
tion  of  the  boundary  of  the 
United  States,  from  the  point 
where  the  forty-fifth  degree  of 


32 


(1)  doubts 

(2)  two. 


(3)  unless  otherwise  specified 
in  this  present  article. 


(4)  report  or 


north  latitude  strikes  the  river 
Iroquois,  or  Cataraguy,  to  the 
Lake  Superior,  was  declared  to 
be  along  the  middle  of  said  river 
into  Lake  Ontario,  through  the 
middle  of  said  lake  until  it  strikes 
the  communication  by  water  be 
tween  that  lake  and  Lake  Erie  ; 
thence,  along  the  middle  of  said 
communication,  into  Lake  Erie, 
through  the  middle  of  said  lake 
until  it  arrives  at  the  water  com 
munication  into  the  Lake  Huron; 
thence,  through  the  middle  of 
said  lake,  to  the  water  communi 
cation  between  that  lake  and 
lake  Superior  :  And  whereas 
doubts  have  arisen  what  was  the 
middle  of  the  said  river,  lakes, 
and  water  communications,  and 
whether  certain  islands,  lying 
in  the  same,  were  within  the  do 
minions  of  his  Britannic  majes 
ty,  or  of  the  United  States :  In 
order,  therefore,  finally  to  de 
cide  these  questions ^(\)  they  shall 
be  referred  to  (2)  three  commis 
sioners,  to  be  appointed,  sworn, 
(mutatis  mutandis'}  and  authoriz 
ed  to  act  exactly  in  the  manner 
directed  with  respect  to  those 
mentioned  in  the  next  preceding 
article. (3)  The  said  commis 
sioners  shall  meet,  in  the  first 

instance,  at  — ,   and    shall 

have  power  to  adjourn  to  such 
other  place  or  places  as  they 
shall  think  fit.  The  said  com 
missioners,  or  a  majority  of  them, 
shall,  by  a  (4)  declaration,  under 
their  hands  and  seals,  designate 
the  boundary  through  the  said 
river,  lakes,  and  water  commu 
nications,  and  decide  to  which  of 
the  two  contracting  parties  the 
several  islands  lying  within  the 
said  rivers,  lakes,  and  water 
communications,  do  respectively 
belong,  in  conformity  with  the 


33 


(1)  said  treaty  of  1783. 

(2)  designation  and 

(3)  And  in  the  event  of  the 
said  two  commissioners  differing, 
or  both  or  either  of  them  refus 
ing,  declining,  or  wilfully  omit- 
ing  to  act,  such  reports,  declara 
tions,    or    statements,    shall  be 
made    by    them,    or    either  of 
them  ;  and  such  reference  to  a 
friendly  sovereign  or  state  shall 
be  made,  in  all  respects,  as  in 
the  latter. part  of  the  third  arti 
cle  is  contained,  and  in  as  full  a 
manner  as  if  the  same  was  herein 
repeated. 

ARTICLE  VI. 

(4)  two. 


(5)  of  1783, 


(6)  of  1783, 


(7)  report  or. 


true  intent  of  the  (1)  former 
treaty  of  peace  ;  and  both  par 
ties  agree  to  consider  such  (2) 
decision  as  final  and  conclu 
sive.  (3) 


ARTICLE  VI.  It  is  further 
agreed,  that  the  said  (4)  last 
mentioned  commissioners,  after 
they  shall  have  executed  the  du 
ties  assigned  to  them  in  the  pre 
ceding  article,  shall  be,  and  they, 
or  a  majority  of  them,  are  hereby 
authorized,  upon  their  oaths, 
impartially  to  fix  and  determine, 
according  to  the  true  intent  of 
the  said  former  treaty  of  peace, 
(5)  that  part  of  the  boundary  be 
tween  the  dominions  of  the  two 
powers  which  extends  from  the 
water  communication  between 
Lake  Huron  and  Lake  Superior, 
to  the  most  northwestern  point  of 
the  Lake  of  the  Woods  ;  to  de 
cide  to  which  of  the  two  parties 
the  several  islands  lying  in  the 
lakes,  water  communications, 
and  rivers,  forming  the  said 
boundary,  do  respectively  be 
long,  in  conformity  with  the  true 
intent  of  the  said  former  treaty 
of  peace,  (6)  and  to  cause  such 
parts  of  the  said  boundary,  as  re 
quire  it,to  be  surveyed  and  mark 
ed.  The  said  commissioners, 
or  a  majority  of  them,  shall,  by  a 
(^declaration,  under  their  hands 


34 


(I)  point*. 


(2)  pads  oi 


(3)  designation  and. 

(4)  And  in   the  event  of  the 
said  two  commissioners  differing, 
or  both  or  either  of  them  refus 
ing,  declining,  or  wilfully  omit 
ting  to  act,  such,  reports,  decla 
rations,  or  statement?,   shall  he 
made    by    them,    or  either   of 
them  ;  and  such  reference  to  a 
friendly  sovereign  or  state  shall 
be  made  in  all  respects  as  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  third  article  is 
contained,  and  in  as  full  a  man 
ner  as  if  the  same  was  herein 
repeated. 

ARTICLE  VII. 

(5)  two. 


(6)  all.         (?)  reports. 

(8)  statements. 

(9)  and. 


and  seals,  designate  the  bounci 
ary  aforesaid,  state  their  deci 
sion  on  the  (1)  questions  thus  re 
ferred  to  them,  and  particularize 
the  latitude  and  longitude  of  the 
most  northwestern  point  of  the 
Lake  of  the  Woods,  and  of  such 
other  (2)  points  an  the  said 
boundary,  as  they  may  deem 
proper  ;  and  both  parties  agree 
to  consider  such  (3)  decision  as 
final  and  conclusive.(4) 


(10)  contracting. 


ARTICLE  VII.  The  several 
boards  of  (5)  commissioners  men 
tioned  in  the  four  preceding  ar 
ticles,  shall  respectively  have 
power  to  appoint  a  secretary, 
and  to  employ  such  surveyors, 
or  other  persons,  as  they  shall 
judge  necessary.  Duplicates  of 
(6)  their  respective  (7)  declara 
tions  (8)  and  decisions  of  the 
statement  (9)  of  their  accounts, 
and  of  the  journal  of  their  pro 
ceedings,  shall  be  delivered  by 
them  to  the  agents  of  his  Britan 
nic  majesty,  and  to  the  agents  of 
the  United  States,  who  may  be 
respectively  appointed  and  au 
thorized  to  manage  the  business 
in  behalf  of  their  respective  go 
vernments.  The  said  commis 
sioners  shall  be  respectively 
paid  in  such  manner  as  shall  be 
agreed  between  the  two  (10)  par 
ties,  such  agreement  being  to  Ue 


35 


(1)  equally. 


(2)  contracting. 


(3)  or  of  the  sovereign  or  state 
so  referred  to,  as  in  ninny  of  the 
preceding  articles  contained. 


ARTICLE  VIII.  It  is  agreed 
that  a  line,  drawn  due  west,  from 
the  Lake  of  the  Woods,  along 
the  49th  parallel  of  north  lati 
tude,  shall  be  the  line  of  demar 
cation  between  his  Britannic 
majesty's  territories  and  those 
of  the  United  States,  to  the  west 
ward  of  the  said  Lake,  so  far  as 
the  territories  of  the  United 
States  extend  in  that  quarter; 


settled  at  the  time  of  the  ex- 
change  of  the  ratifications  of  this 
treaty  ;  and  all  other  expenses 
attending  the  said  commissions, 
shall  be  defrayed  (I)  jointly  by 
the  two  parties,  the  same  being 
previously  ascertained  and  allow 
ed  by  the  majority  of  the  commis 
sioners.  And  in  the  case  of 
death,  sickness,  resignation,  or 
necessary  absence,  the  place  of 
every  such  commissioner,  re 
spectively,  shall  be  supplied  in 
the  same  manner  as  such  com 
missioner  was  first  appointed  ; 
and  the  new  commissioner  shall 
take  the  same  oath,  or  affirma 
tion,  and  do  the  same  duties. 

It  is  further  agreed  between 
the  two  (2)  parties,  that,  in  case 
any  of  the  islands  mentioned  in 
any  of  the  preceding  articles, 
which  were  in  the  possession  of 
one  of  the  parties,  prior  to  the 
commencement  of  the  present 
war  between  the  two  countries, 
should,  by  the  decision  of  any 
of  the  boards  of  commissioners 
aforesaid,  (4)  fall  within  the  do 
minions  of  the  other  party,  all 
grants  of  lands  made  previous  to 
that  time,  by  the  party  having 
had  such  possession,  shall  be  as 
valid,  as  if  such  island  or  islands 
had,  by  such  decision  or  deci 
sions,  been  adjudged  to  be  within 
the  dominions  of  the  party  hav 
ing  had  such  possession. 

ARTICI.K  VIII.  It  is  agreed 
that  a  line,  drawn  due  north  or 
south,  (as  the  case  may  be)  from 
the  most  northwestern  point  of  the 
Lake  of  the  Woods,  until  it  shall 
intersect  the  forty-ninth  parallel 
of  north  latitude,  and  from  the 
point  of  such  intersection  due 
west,  along  and  with,  the  said 
parallel,  shall  be  the  dividing 
line  between  his  majesty* *  ter- 


36 


and  the  said  line  shall,  to  that  ex 
tent,  form  the  southern  boundary 
ef  his  Britannic  Majesty's  terri 
tories,  and  the  northern  bounda- 
ry  of  the  territories  of  the  United 
States,  It  being  always  distinctly 
understood,  that  nothing  in  the 
present  article  shall  be  construed 
to  extend  to  the  Northwest 
Coast  of  America;  or  to  territo 
ries  belonging  to,  or  claimed  by, 
either  party,  on  the  continent  of 
America,  westward  of  the  Stony 
Mountain?.  [And  it  is  further 
agreed,  the  subjects  of  his  Bri 
tannic  majesty  shall,  at  all  times, 
have  access  from  his  Britennic 
majesty's  territories,  by  land  or 
inland  navigation,  into  the  afore 
said  territories  of  the  United 
States  to  the  river  Mississippi, 
with  their  goods,  -effects,  and 
merchandise,  and  that  his  Britan 
nic  majesty's  subjects  shall  have 
and  enjoy  the  free  navigation  of 
the  said  river.] 

ARTICLE  IX. 

Approved. 


ritories  and  those  of  the  United 
States,  to  the  westward  of  the  said 
Lake,  as  far  as  their  said  respec 
tive  territories  extend  in  that 
quarter;  and  that  the  said  line 
shall,  to  that  extent,  form  the 
•  southern  boundary  of  his  Britan 
nic  majesty's  said  territories,  and 
the  northern  boundary  of  the  said 
territories  of  the  United  States : 
Provided,  that  nothing  in  the  pre 
sent  article  shall  be  construed  to 
extend  to  the  Northwest  Coast  of 
America,  or  to  the  territories  be 
longing  to,  or  claimed  by,  either 
party,  on  the  continent  of  America* 
to  the  westward  of  the  Stony 
Mountains. 


ARTICLE  IX.  The  United 
States  of  America  engage  to  put 
an  end,  immediately  after  the 
ratification  of  the  present  treaty, 
to  hostilities  with  all  the  tribes 
or  nations  of  Indians  with  whom 
they  may  be  at  war,  at  the  time 
of  such  ratification,  and  forth 
with  to  restore  to  such  tribes  or 
nations,  respectively,  all  the 
possessions,  rights,  and  privi 
lege5?,  which  they  may  have  en 
joyed,  or  been  entitled  to,  in 
1811,  previous  to  such  hostili* 
ties  :  Provided  always,  that  such 
tribes  or  nations  shall  agree  to 
desist  from  all  hostilities  against 
the  United  States  of  America, 
their  citizens,  and  subjects,  upon 
the  ratification  of  the  present 
treaty  being  notified  to  such 
tribes  or  nations,  and  shall  so 
desist  accordingly.  And  his  Bri 


37 


ARTICLE  X. 
Inadmissible. 


ARTICLE  XI. 
Inadmissible, 


tannic  majesty  engages,  on  hi* 
part,  to  put  an  end,  immediately 
after  the  ratification  of  the  pre 
sent  treaty,  to  hostilities  with  all 
the  tribes  or  nations  of  Indians 
with  whom  he  may  be  at  war,  at 
the  time  of  such  ratification,  and 
forthwith  to  restore  to  such 
tribes  or  nations,  respectively, 
all  the  possessions,  rights,  and 
privileges,  which  they  may  have 
enjoyed  or  been  entitled  to  in 
1811,  previous  to  such  hostili 
ties  :  Provided  always,  that  such 
tribes  or  nations  shall  agree  to 
desist  from  all  hostilities  against 
his  Britannic  majesty  and  his 
subjects,  upon  the  ratification  of 
the  present  treaty  being  notified 
to  such  tribes  or  nations,  and 
shall  so  desist  accordingly, 

ARTICLE  X.  His  Britannic 
majesty  and  the  United  States 
shall,  by  all  the  means  in  their 
power,  restrain  the  Indians  living 
within  their  respective  domin 
ions  from  committing  hostili 
ties  against  the  territory,  citi 
zens,  or  subjects,  of  the  other 
party.  And  both  powers  also 
agree  and  mutually  pledge  them 
selves,  if  at  any  time  war  should 
unhappily  break  out  between 
them,  not  to  employ  any  Indians, 
nor  to  admit  of  their  aid  and  co 
operation  in  the  prosecution  of 
the  war  against  the  other  party. 

ARTICLE  XI.  Each  party  shall 
effectually  exclude  from  its  na 
val  and  commercial  service,  all 
seamen,  seafaring,  or  other  per 
sons,  subjects  or  citizens  of  the 
other  party,  not  naturalized  by 
the  respective  governments  of 

the  two  parties  before  the  

day  of . 

Seamen,  or  other  persons, 
subjects  of  either  party,  who  shall 
desert  from  public  or  private 


38 

ships  or  vessels,  shall,  when 
found  within  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  other  party,  be  surrendered, 
provided  they  be  demanded  with 
in  from  the  time  of  their 

desertion. 

No  person  whatever  shall, 
upon  the  high  seas,  and  without 
the  jurisdiction  of  either  party, 
be  demanded,  or  taken  out  of  any 
ship  or  vessel  belonging  to  sub* 
jects  or  citizens  of  any  of  the 
parties,  by  the  public  or  private 
armed  ships  or  vessels  belonging 
to,  or  in  the  service  of, the  other, 
unless  such  person  be,  at  the 
time,  in  the  actual  employment 
of  an  enemy  of  such  other  party. 
This  article  shall  continue  in 

force  for  the  term  of years. 

Nothing  in  this  article  contained 
shall  be  construed  thereafter  to 
affect  or  impair  the  rights  of  ei 
ther  party. 

ARTICLE  XH,  ARTICLE  XII.  If  either  of  the 

Inadmissible.  contracting  parties  shall  hereaf 

ter  be  engaged  in  a  war  against 
any  third  power,  to  which  war 
the  other  of  the  parties  shall  re 
main  neutral,  it  is  agreed  that 
every  vessel  of  the  neutral  par 
ty  sailing  for  a  port  or  place  be 
longing  to  the  enemy  of  the 
belligerent,  withoutknowing  that 
the  same  is  besieged,  blockaded, 
or  invested,  may  be  turned  away 
from  such  port  or  place,  but 
shall  not  be  detained,  nor  her 
cargo,  if  not  contraband,  be  con 
fiscated,  unless,  after  such  no 
tice,  she  shall  again  attempt  te 
enter ;  but  she  shall  be  permitted 
to  go  to  any  other  port  or  place 
she  may  think  proper.  Nor 
shall  any  vessel  or  goods  of  either 
party,  that  may  have  entered 
into  such  port  or  place  before 
the  same  was  besieged,  block 
aded,  or  invested;,  by  the  other. 


39 


and  be  found  therein  after  the 
reduction  or  surrender  of  such 
place,  be  liable  to  confiscation, 
but  shall  be  restored  to  the  pro 
prietors  thereof  :  and,  in  order 
to  determine  what  characterizes 
a  blockaded  port,  that  denomina 
tion  is  given  only  to  a  port  where 
there  is,  by  the  disposition  of  the 
power  which  attacks  it  with 
ships  stationary  or  sufficiently 
near,  an  evident  danger  in  en* 


that 

indemnity  shall  be  made  by  his 
Britannic  majesty  to  the  citizens 
of  the  United  States,  for  all  losses 
and  damages  sustained  by  them. 
during  the   late    war    between 
Great  Britain  and  France,  and  pri 
or  to  the  commencement  of  the 
present  war,  by  reason  of  irregu 
lar  or  illegal  captures,  seizures, 
or  condemnations  of  vessels  and 
other  property,  under  colour  of 
.authority,  contrary  to  the  known 
and  established  rules  of  the  law 
of  nations.  And  it  is  also  agreed, 
that  indemnity  shall  be  made,  by 
each  of  the  contracting  parties, 
to  the  subjects  or  citizens  of  the 
other  party,  for  all  losses  and 
damage  sustained  subsequent  to 
the  commencement  of  the  pre 
sent  war,  by  reason  of  the  sei 
zure  or  condemnation    of   the 
vessels  or  cargoes,  belonging  to 
the  subjects  or  citizens  of  the 
other  party,  which,  in  the  ordi 
nary  course  of  commerce,  hap 
pened,  at  the  commencement  of 
hostilities,  to  be  in  the  ports  of 
the  other  party  ;  and  by  reason 
of  the  destruction  of  unfortified 
towns,  and  the  pillage  or  destruc 
tion  of  private  property,  and  the 
enticement  and  carrying  away  of 
negroes,  contrary  to  the  known 
and  established  rules  and  usages 


40 


of  war,  between  civilized  ira 
tions. 

It  is  agreed  that,  for  the  pur 
pose  of  determining  the  indem 
nities  due  by  each  contracting 
party,   in   conformity  with  the 
provisions  of  this  article,  com 
missioners  shall  be   appointed, 
in  the  following  manner,  viz  : 
one  commissioner  shall  be  named 
by  his  Britannic  majesty,  and  one 
by  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  by  and  with  the  advice 
and  consent  of  the  Senate  there 
of;  and  the  said  two  commission 
ers  shall  agree  in  the  choice  of 
a  third  ;  or,  if  they  cannot  agree, 
they   shall   each    propose    one 
person,  and  of  the  two  names  so 
proposed,  one  shall  be  taken  by 
lot,  in  the  presence  of  the  two 
original  commissioners,  and  the 
three   commissioners,  thus   ap 
pointed,  shall  be  sworn  and  au 
thorized  and  empowered,  impar 
tially,  to  examine  into  all  such 
claims   and  complaints,  and   to 
determine  the  indemnities  which 
may  be  justly  due  for  the  same. 
The  said  commissioners  shall 
meet  at ,  and  shall  have  pow 
er  to  adjourn  to  such  other  place 
or  places  as  they  shall  think  fit ; 
they  shall  also  have  power  to  ap 
point  a  secretary,  swear  and  ex- 
amine  witnesses,  and  have  all  as 
sistance  and  facilities  necessary 
to  effect  the  object  of  their  ap. 
pointment. 

The  award  of  the  said  com 
missioners,  or  amajorityofthem, 
shall,  in  all  cases,  be  final  and 
conclusive,  both  as  to  the  justice 
of  the  claim  and  as  to  the  amount 
of  the  sum  to  be  paid  to  the 
claimant  and  claimants  ;  and  his 
Britannic  majesty  and  the  Unit 
ed  States  agree  and  undertake 
to  cause  the  sums  so  awarded  to 


ARTICLE  XIV 
Inadmissible. 


be  due  by  them,  respectively,  to 
be  paid  in  specie,  to  such  claim 
ant  and  claimants,  without  de 
duction,  and  at  such  place  or 
places,  time  or  times,  as  shall  be 
awarded  by  the  commissioners. 
ARTICLE  XIV.  It  is  also  agreed, 
that  no  person  or  persons,  re 
siding  within  the  dominions  of 
one  of  the  parties,  who  may  have 
taken  part  with  the  other  party 
in  the  war  between  Great  Britain 
and  the  United  States,  shall,  on 
that  account,  be  prosecuted,  mo 
lested,  or  annoyed,  either  in  his 
person  or  property  ;  and  that  all 
such  persons  disposed  to  remove 
into  the  dominions  of  the  other 
party,  shall  be  allowed  the  term 

of months,  freely  to  sell 

their  property,  of  every  nature 
and  description  whatsoever,  ami 
to  remove  accordingly. 

ARTICLE  XV.  This  treaty, 
when  the  same  shall  have  been 
ratified  on  both  sides,  and  the 
respective  ratifications  mutually 
exchanged,  shall  be  binding  on 
both  parties,  and  the  ratifica 
tions  shall  be  exchanged  at  (1) 

in  the  space  of months 

from  this  day,  or  sooner  if  pos 
sible.  (2) 

In  faith  whereof,  we,  the  re* 
spective  plenipotentiaries,  have 
signed  this  treaty,  and  have 
thereunto  affixed  our  seals. 

Done  at  Ghent,  the day 

of one  thousand  eight  hun 
dred  and  fourteen. 


True  copy  of  the  project  submitted  by  the  American  to  the  Bri 
tish  ministers,  and  also  of  the  marginal  changes,  propositions,  and 
remarks,  made  by  the  latter  on  returning  their  answer  to  the  Ame 
rican  ministers'  note,  communicating  said  project  of  a  treaty. 

C.  HUGHES,  Jr. 
Secretary  American  Mission  extraordinary. 


ARTICLE  XV. 


(1)  Washington,  with  all  practi 
cable  despatch. 

(2)  practicable 


42 

Draft  of  article  to  be  inserted  immediately  after  article  %d  of  the 
American  project* 

All  prisoners  of  war  taken  on  either  side,  as  well  by  land  as  by 
sen,  shall  be  restored  as  soon  as  practicable,  alter  the  ratifications 
of  this  treaty  shall  have  been  exchanged,  on  their  paying  the  debts 
which  they  may  have  contracted  during  their  captivity.  The  two 
contracting  parties  respectively  engage  to  discharge,  in  specie,  the 
advances  which  may  have  been  made  by  the  other,  for  the  sqste* 
toance  and  maintenance  of  such  prisoners. 


American  A"o.  7,  in  reply  to  British  No.  7. 

GHENT,  3oth  Nov.  1814. 

The  undersigned  have  had  the  honour  to  receive  the  note  of 
the  British  plenipotentiaries  of  the  26th  instant,  together  with  their 
marginal  alterations  and  suggestions,  on  the  several  articles  of  the 
project  of  a  treaty  of  peace,  proposed  by  the  undersigned 

The  undersigned  consent  that  the  day  of  the  exchange  of  ratifi 
cations  be  substituted  to  that  of  the  signature  of  the  treaty,  as  the 
time  for  the  cessation  of  hostilities,  and  for  regulating  the  periods 
after  which  prizes  at  sea  shall  be  restored  :  it  being  understood 
that  measures  shall  be  adopted  for  a  speedy  exchange  of  ratifica 
tions,  and  that  the  periods  in  the  second  article  shall  be  fixed  in  a 
manner  corresponding  with  this  alteration. 

The  undersigned  will  also  agree  to  the  new  article  respecting 
prisoners,  and  to  the  mode  of  reference  proposed  by  the  British 
plenipotentiaries  in  the  third,  fourth,  fifth,  sixth,  and  seventh  arti 
cles,  instead  of  that  which  had  been  proposed  by  the  undersigned. 
But,  in  order  to  prevent  delay,  they  will  suggest  that  a  time  be 
fixed,  within  which  the  commissioners  shall  make  their  decisions 
and  reports. 

The  undersigned  will  decline  insisting  upon  the  10th,  12th,  and 
14th  articles,  and  upon  so  much  of  the  13th  article  as  relates  to 
indemnities  for  losses  and  damages  sustained  subsequent  to  the 
commencement  of  the  present  war.  They  wish  to  discuss  the  cases 
of  vessels  and  property,  in  port  when  war  was  declared  or  known  ; 
and  have  the  honour  to  enclose  a  copy  of  the  provision  made  in 
th.it  respect  by  the  United  States.  They  will  also  waive  the  resi 
due  of  that  (the  13th)  article,  and  the  llth  article,  it  being  under 
stood  that  the  rights  of  both  powers  on  the  subject  of  seamen,  and 
tke  claims  of  the  citizens  and  subjects  of  the  two  contracting  par 
ties,  to  indemnities  for  losses  and  damages  sustained  prior  to  the 
commencement  of  the  war,  shall  not  be  affected,  or  impaired,  by 
the  omission  in  the  treaty  of  any  specific  provision  with  respect  to 
those  two  subjects. 

:    Proposed  by  the  British  ministers. 


43 

In  forbearing  to  insist  upon  the  discussion  of  subjects  3eep]jr 
involving  interests  important  to  their  country,  and  upon  which  the 
undersigned  view  the  proposals  offered  by  them  for  consideration 
as  founded  on  principles  the  most  moderate  and  conciliatory,  they 
give  the  strongest  evidence  of  the  anxious  wish  of  their  government 
that  the  negotiation  should  be  brought  to  a  happy  issue. 

Sincerely  participating  in  the  desire  expressed  by  the  British 
plenipotentiaries,  of  endeavouring  to  reconcile.the  pretensions  oi" 
both  governments  on  the  few  subjects  remaining  for  discussion,  the 
undersigned  have  also  assented  to  most  of  the  alterations,  proposed 
by  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  to  those  parts  of  the  project  which 
they  have  not  entirely  rejected.  0^7*  [To  some  of  these  alterations 
the  undersigned  are  compelled  by  their  duty  to  object.  They  have 
already  stated,  and  now  repeat,  that,  whilst  requiring  of  Great 
Britain  no  sacrifice  whatever,  the  government  of  the  United  States 
has  not  authorized  the  undersigned  to  agree  to  any  stipulation  in 
volving  any  cession  of  the  territory,  or  the  dereliction  of  any  of  the 
essential  rights  of  the  people  of  the  United  States. 

The  objections  of  the  undersigned  are  to  one  of  the  alterations 
suggested  by  the  British  plenipotentiaries  in  the  first  article  ;  to 
some  parts  of  the  preamble  of  the  third  article  ;  and  to  the  eighth 
article  ;]  and  they  have  also  some  other  verbal  alterations  to  sug 
gest.  They  request  a  conference,  at  such  time  and  place  as  may 
suit  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  for  the  purpose  of  discussing 
those  points,  and  of  agreeing  on  the  places  and  times  left  in  bla,nk 
in  several  of  the  articles. 

The  undersigned  renew  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries  the  as 
surance  of  their  high  eonsideration. 

JOHN  QU1NCY  ADAMS, 
J.  A.  BAYARD, 
HENRY  CLAY, 
JONATHAN  RUSSELL, 
ALBERT  GALLAT1N. 
To  the  Plenipotentiaries  of  his  Britannic 

majesty,  &LC.  &c.  &c. 


Extract  of  a  law  of  the  United  Slates  passed  July  6/A,  1812. 

**  Sec.  6.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  the  President  of  the 
United  States  be,  and  he  is  hereby,  authorized,  to  give,  at  any 
time,  within  six  months  after  the  passage  of  this  act,  passports  for 
the  safe  transportation  of  any  ship  or  other  property  belonging  to 
British  subjects,  and  which  is  now  within  the  limits  of  the  United 
>States." 


British  Note  No.  8. 

The  undersigned  have  the  honour  to  acknowledge  the  receipt 
of  the  note  addressed  to  them  by  the  American  plenipotentiaries, 


44 

and  in  compliance  with  their  request  for  a  conference,  shall  be 
happy  to  receive  them  at  the  Chartreux  to-morrow  at  12  o'clock. 

The  undersigned  request  the  American  plenipotentiaries  to  ac 
cept  the  assurance  of  their  high  consideration. 

GAMB1ER, 

HENRY  GOULBURN, 
WILLIAM  ADAMS. 
,  ]\Toy.  3oih,  1814. 


Protocol  of  a  conference,,  held  the  1st  December,  1814,  at  Ghent. 

At  a  conference  held  this  day,  the  American  plenipotentiaries 
proposed  the  following  alterations  in  their  project,  as  amended  by 
the  British  plenipotentiaries. 

1.  In  article  1st,  strike  out  the  alteration  consisting  of  the  words 
"  belonging  to,  and  taken  by,"  and  preserve  the  original  reading, 
viz.  "  taken  by  either  party  from  the  other." 

This  alteration  was  objected  to  by  the  British  plenipotentiaries, 
and  after  some  discussion,  reserved  by  them  for  the  consideration 
of  their  government. 

2.  Transpose  alteration  consisting  of  the  words  "  originally  cap 
tured  in  the  said  forts  or  places,  and  which  shall  remain  therein 
upon  the  exchange  of  the  ratifications  of  this  treaty,"  after  the 
words  "  public  property." 

Agreed  to  by  the  British  plenipotentiaries. 

3.  Article  2d.  The  term  to  be  fifteen  days  in  the  Channel,  in 
the  North  Seas,  in  all  parts  of  the  Atlantic  ocean  to  the  equinoctial 
line  or  equator,  and  in  all  parts  of  the  Mediterranean.  Two  months 
in  the  Atlantic  ocean,  to  the  latitude  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope, 
and  three  months  in  all  other  parts  of  the  world. 

In  lieu  of  this  alteration,  the  British  plenipotentiaries  proposed 
(he  following,  viz.  "  That  all  vessels  and  effects  which  may  be  taken 
after  the  space  of  twelve  days  from  the  period  of  the  exchange  of 
the  said  ratifications,  upon  all  parts  of  the  coasts  of  North  America, 
from  the  latitude  of  23  deg.  north,  to  the  latitude  of  47  deg.  north 
and  as  far  eastward  in  the  Atlantic  ocean  as  the  65  deg.  of  west 
longitude  from  the  meridian  of  Greenwich,  shall  be  restored  on 
each  side.  That  the  term  shall  be  thirty  days  in  all  other  parts  of 
the  Atlantic  ocean,  as  far  eastward  as  the  entrance  of  the  British 
Channel,  and  southward  as  far  as  the  equinoctial  line  or  equator, 
and  the  same  time  for  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  and  all  parts  of  the  West 
Indies.  Forty  days  for  the  British  Channel  and  the  North  Seas. 
The  same  time  for  all  parts  of  the  Mediterranean,  and  one  hun 
dred  and  fifty  days  for  all  other  parts  of  the  world,  without  excep 
tion."  Which  was  reserved  by  the  American  plenipotentiaries 
for  consideration. 

4.  Article  3d.  After  the  words  "  all  islands  within  twenty  leagues 


43 

of,"  insert  "  any  part  of"  and  substitute  "  points"  for  "  point,"  af 
ter  the  words  "to  be  drawn  due  east  from  the." 
Agreed  to  by  the  British  plenipotenitaries. 

5.  Article  3d.  Strike  out  the  words  "  whereas  claims  have  been 
made  by  the  government  of  the  United  States  to  certain  islands  in 
the   Bay  of  Fundy,"  and  insert,  "  whereas  the  severals  islands  in 
the   Bay  of  Passamaquoddy,  which  is  part  of  the  Bay  of  Fundy, 
and  the   island   of  Grand   Menan,  in   the  said  Bay  of  Fundy,  are 
claimed  by  the  United  States,  as  being  comprehended  within  the 
aforesaid  boundaries." 

Agreed  to  by  the  British  plenipotentiaries. 

6.  Article  7th.   In  the  alteration,  consisting  of  the  words  "or  of 
the  sovereign  or  state  so  referred  to  as  in  many  of  the  preceding 
articles  contained,"  substitute  "  any"  to  u  many." 

Not  insisted  on  ;  the  British  plenipotentiaries  consenting  to  sub 
stitute  the  words  "  the  foar  next"  for  the  marginal  words  "  many 
ofthe."  f 

7.  Articles  3,  4,  5,  and  6.     Provide   that  the  decisions  of  the 
commissioners  shall  be  made  within  a  limited  time. 

Objected  to  by  the  British  plenipotentiaries. 

8.  Article  8th.  Substitute,  after  the  words  "  to  the  westward  of 
the  said  lake  so  far  as,"  the  words  "  their  said  respective  territo 
ries,"  instead  ofthe  words  "  the  territories  ofthe  United  States." 

Agreed  to  by  the  British  plenipotentiaries. 

Ctirp.  Article  8th.     Strike  out  from  the  words  "  and  it  is  fur 
ther  agreed,"  to  the  end. 

Reserved  by  the  British  plenipotentiaries  for  the  consideration 
>f  their  government. 

10.  The  American  plenipotentiaries  also  proposed  the  following 
amendment  to  Article  8th,  viz.  "The  inhabitants  of  the  United 
States  shall  continue  to  enjoy  the  liberty  to  take,  dry,  and  cure 
fish,  in  places  within  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  Great  Britain,  as 
secured  by  the  former  treaty  of  peace  ;  and  the  navigation  of  the 
river  Mississippi,  within  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  United 
States,  shall  remain  free  and  open  to  the  subjects  of  Great  Britain, 
in  the  manner  secured  by  the  said  treaty  ;  and  it  is  further  agreed, 
that  the  subjects  of  his  Britannic  majesty  shall  at  all  times  have 
access,  from  such  place  as  may  be  selected  for  that  purpose,  in  his 
Britannic  majesty's  aforesaid  territories,  west,  and  within  three 
hundred  miles  of  the  Lake  of  the  Woods,  in  the  aforesaid  territo 
ries  ofthe  United  States,  to  the  river  Mississippi,  in  order  to  enjoy 
the  benefit  ofthe  navigation  of  that  river,  with  their  goods,  effect*, 
and  merchandise,  whose  importation  into  the  said  States  shall  not 
be  entirely  prohibited,  on  the  payment  ofthe  same  duties  as  would 
be  payable  on  the  importation  of  the  same  into  the  Atlantic  ports 
ofthe  said  States,  and  on  conforming  with  the  usual  custom-house 
regulations/' 

This  amendment  was  left  with  the  British  plenipotentiaries  for 
consideration. 


46 

The  American  plenipotentiaries  also  intimated  their  willingness 
to  omit  Article  8th  altogether,  if  that  course  should  appear  more 
advisable  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries.] 

The  American  plenipotentiaries  further  proposed,  in  conformity 
with  their  note  of  November  30th,  indemnifications  for  ships  de 
tained  in  British  ports  on  the  breaking  out  of  the  war,  and  after 
wards  condemned  ;  which  was  resisted  by  the  British  plenipoten 
tiaries. 

After  much  discussion  on  this  point,  the  conference  was  ad 
journed. 

Protocol  of  Conference  on  December  10th,  1 8 1 4.— Ghent, 

The  Protocol  of  the  preceding  conference,  held  on  the  Isi. 
instant,  was  settled. 

The  British  plenipotentiaries  stated  that  their  government  could 
not  consent  to  omit  the  words  in  article  1st,  "  belonging  to  either 
party  and  taken  by  the  other,"  unless  some  modification  should  be 
introduced,  either  by  excepting  from  mutual  restitution  all  thosd 
territories  which  are  made  by  any  articles  of  the  treaty  the  subject 
of  reference  to  commissioners,  or  by  excepting  the  Passamaquoddy 
Islands  alone. 

Received  by  the  American  plenipotentiaries  for  consideration. 

03=  [The  British  plenipotentiaries  then  stated,  that  with  respect 
to  the  8th  article,  their  government  offered,  in  lieu  of  the  American 
proposals,  to  retain  the  amended  article  as  far  as  the  words  "  Stony 
Mountains,"  and  to  insert  the  following  stipulation  : 

**  His  Britannic  majesty  agrees  to  enter  into  negotiation  with  the 
United  States  of  America  respecting  the  terms,  conditions,  and  re 
gulations,  under  which  the  inhabitants  of  the  said  United  States 
shall  have  the  liberty  of  taking  fish  on  certain  parts  of  the  coast  of 
Newfoundland,  and  other  his  Britannic  majesty's  dominions  in  North 
America,  and  of  drying  and  curing  fish  in  the  unsettled  bays,  har 
bours,  and  creeks,  of  Nova  Scotia,  Magdalen  Islands,  and  Labrador, 
as  stipulated  in  the  latter  part  of  the  3d  article  of  the  treaty  of  1783, 
in  consideration  of  a  fair  equivalent,  to  be  agreed  upon  between  his 
majesty  and  the  said  United  States,  and  granted  by  the  said  United 
States  for  such  liberty  aforesaid. 

"  The  United  States  of  America  agree  to  enter  into  negotiation 
with  his  Britannic  majesty  respecting  the  terms,  conditions,  and  re 
gulations,  under  which  the  navigation  of  the  river  Mississippi,  from 
its  source  to  the  ocean,  as  stipulated  in  the  8th  article  of  the  treaty 
of  1783,  shall  remain  free  and  open  to  the  subjects  of  Great  Bri 
tain,  in  consideration  of  a  fair  equivalent,  to  be  agreed  upon  be 
tween  his  majesty  and  the  United  States,  and  granted  by  his  ma 
jesty."] 

Received  by  the  American  plenipoliaries  for  consideration. 

In  the  7th  article  the  British  plenipotentiaries  proposed,  after 
the  words  "  all  grants  of  land  made  previous  to,"  to  omit  the  words 


47 

"  to  that  time,"  and  insert  "  previous  to  the  commencement  of  the 
war  ;"  so  that  the  line  would  read  "  all  grants  of  land  made  pre 
vious  to  the  commencement  of  the  war." 

Agreed  to. 

The  British  plenipotentiaries  proposed  the  insertion  of  the  fol 
lowing  article  relative  to  the  slave  trade. 

"  Whereas  the  traffic  in  slaves  is  irreconcileable  with  the  prin 
ciples  of  humanity  and  justice,  and  whereas  both  his  majesty  and 
the  United  States  are  desirous  of  continuing  their  efforts  to  promote 
its  entire  abolition,  it  is  hereby  agreed  that  both  the  contracting 
parties  shall  exert  every  means  in  their  power  to  accomplish  so 
desirable  an  object." 

Received  for  consideration. 

The  British  plenipotentiaries  proposed  the  following  provision  : 

"  That  the  citizens  or  subjects  of  each  of  the  contracting  parties 
may  reciprocally  sue  in  the  courts  of  the  other,  and  shall  meet 
with  no  impediment  to  the  recovery  of  all  such  estates,  rights,  pro 
perties,  or  securities,  as  may  be  due  to  them  by  the  laws  of  the 
country  in  whose  courts  they  shall  sue." 

Received  for  consideration. 

The  British  plenipotentiaries  proposed  in  the  preamble  to  the 
project  of  the  treaty  to  omit  the  words  "  Admiral  of  the  White 
Squadron,"  and  insert  **  late  Admiral  of  the  White,  now  Admiral 
of  the  Red,"  in  lieu  of  them. 

Agreed  to. 

The  American  plenipotentiaries  stated  that  possibly  doubts 
might  arise  as  to  the  geographical  accuracy  of  the  words  at  the  be 
ginning  of  the  8th  article — "  a  line  drawn  due  west  from  the  Lake 
of  the  Woods  along  the  49th  parallel  of  north  latitude." 

It  was  agreed  that  an  alteration  should  be  made  to  guard  against 
such  possible  inaccuracy. 

The  American  plenipotentiaries  proposed  the  following  altera 
tion  in  the  draft  delivered  to  them  by  the  British  plenipotentiaries, 
relative  to  the  manner  of  filling  up  the  blanks  in  article  2d  :  "  Ex 
tend  the  term  of  12  days  to  50  degrees  north  latitude,  and  to  the 
oGth  west  longitude  ;  include  the  British  and  Irish  channels  in  the 
term  of  30  days  ;  include  the  Baltic  in  the  term  of  40  days  ;  instead 
of  term  of  150  days,  insert  60  days  for  the  Atlantic,  as  far  as  the  lati 
tude  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope  ;  90  days  for  every  other  part  of  the 
world  south  of  the  equator;  120  days  for  all  other  parts  oi  the  world." 

The  conference  then  ended. 


Protocol  of  Conference  on  December  1 2th,  1814. 

The  Protocol  of  the  preceding  conference,  held  on  the  10th  in 
stant,  was  settled. 

(^[After  much  discussion  relative  to  the  1st  and  8th  articles,  the 
conference  ended  by  the  American  plenipotentiaries  undertaking 
to  return  an  answer,  in  writing,  to  the  propositions  brought  forward 
by  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  at  the  last  conference.] 


48 

American  iVbte,  No.  8,  written  after  the  Conference  of  \1th  of  De 
cember,  1814. 

Ghent,  December  14th,  1814. 

The  undersigned,  having  considered  the  propositions  offered,  iu 
the  conference  of  the  10th  instant,  by  the  British  plenipotentiaries, 
on  the  few  subjects  which  remain  to  be  adjusted,  now  have  the  ho 
nour  of  making  the  communication  which  they  promised. 

The  first  of  them  relates  to  the  mutual  restoration  of  the  territo 
ry  taken  by  either  party  from  the  other,  during  the  war.  In  ad 
mitting  this  principle,  which  the  undersigned  had  repeatedly  de 
clared  to  be  the  only  one  upon  which  they  were  authorized  to  treat, 
the  British  plenipotentiaries  had,  at  first,  proposed  an  alteration  in, 
the  article  offered  by  the  undersigned,  limiting  the  stipulation  of  re 
storing  territory  taken  during  the  war,  to  territory  belonging  to  the 
party  from  which  it  was  taken.  The  objection  of  the  undersigned 
to  this  alteration  was,  that  a  part  of  the  territory  thus  taken  being 
claimed  by  both  parties,  and  made  a  subject  of  conference  by  the 
treaty,  the  alteration  would  leave  it  in  the  power  of  one  party  to 
judge  whether  any  portion  of  territory  taken  by  him  during  the  war, 
did  or  did  not  belong  to  the  other  party,  laying  thereby,  in  the  very 
instrument  of  pacification,  the  foundation  of  an  immediate  misun 
derstanding,  the  moment  that  instrument  should  be  carried  into  ex 
ecution. 

The  British  plenipotentiaries  have  now  proposed  to  omit  the 
words  originally  offered  by  them,  provided,  that  the  Passamnquod- 
dy  Islands  should  alone  be  excepted  from  the  mutual  restitutioirof 
territory. 

The  consent  of  the  undersigned  to  this  solitary  exception,  if 
founded  on  the  alleged  right  of  Great  Britain  to  those  islands,  might 
be  construed  as  an  implied  admission  of  a  better  title  on  her  part, 
than  on  that  of  the  United  States,  and  would  necessarily  affect  their 
claim.  The  only  ground  for  the  exception  consists  in  the  allega 
tion  of  the  British  plenipotentiaries  that  Great  Britain  had,  during 
some  period  subsequent  to  the  treaty  of  peace  of  1783,  exercised 
jurisdiction  over  those  islands,  and  that  the  United  States  had  sub 
sequently  occupied  them,  contrary  to  the  remonstrances  of  the 
British  government,  and  before  the  question  of  title  had  been  ad 
justed. 

Under  these  considerations,  the  undersigned,  unwilling  to  pre 
vent  the  conclusion  of  the  treaty  of  peace,  will  take  upon  them 
selves  the  responsibility  of  agreeing  to  the  exception  proposed, 
with  a  provision,  that  the  claim  of  the  United  States  shall  not, 
thereby,  be  in  any  manner  affected.  The  undersigned  have  ac 
cordingly  prepared  a  clause  to  that  effect,  and  which  provides,  also, 
that  the  temporary  possession  may  not  be  converted  into  perma 
nent  occupancy.  They  had  agreed  to  the  alteration  proposed  by 
the  British  plenipotentiaries  in  the  mode  of  reference  of  the  several 
boundaries  and  territory  in  dispute,  under  the  expectation  that  th-e 


49 

proposed  exception  to  a  general  restoration  would  not  be  insisted 
on,  and  they  will  add,  that  the  objection  to  the  temporary  posses 
sion  by  Great  Britain  of  the  Passamaquoddy  Islands,  would  be  con 
siderably  lessened  by  adopting  a  mode  of  reference  which  would 
insure  a  speedy  and  certain  decision. 

[To  the  stipulation  now  proposed  by  the  British  plenipotentia 
ries  as  a  substitute  for  the  last  paragraph  of  the  8th  article,  the  un- 
dersigned  cannot  accede. 

The  proposition  made,  respecting  the  navigation  of  the  Missis 
sippi,  in  the  alteration  first  proposed  by  the  British  plenipotentia 
ries  to  that  article,  was  unexpected.  In  their  note  of  the  31st  of 
October,  they  had  stated,  that  they  had  brought  forward  in  their 
note  of  the  21st  of  the  same  month,  all  the  propositions  which  they 
had  to  offer  ;  and  that  subject  was  not  mentioned  either  in  this  last 
mentioned  note,  or  in  the  first  conference  to  which  it  referred.  In 
order  to  obviate  any  difficulty  arising  from  a  presumed  connectiou 
between  that  subject  and  that  of  the  boundary  proposed  by  the  8th 
article,  the  undersigned  expressed  their  willingness  to  omit  the  ar 
ticle  altogether.  For  the  purpose  of  meeting  what  they  believed 
to  be  the  wishes  of  the  British  government,  they  proposed  the  in 
sertion  of  an  article  which  should  recognise  the  right  of  Great  Bri 
tain  to  the  navigation  of  that  river,  and  that  of  the  United  States  to 
a  liberty  in  certain  fisheries,  which  the  British  government  consi 
dered  as  abrogated  byjthe  war.  To  such  an  article,  which  they 
viewed  as  merely  declaratory,  the  undersigned  had  no  objection, 
und  have  offered  to  accede.  They  do  not,  however,  want  any 
new  article  on  either  of  those  subjects  :  they  have  offered  to  be 
silent  with  regard  to  both.  To  the  stipulation  now  proposed,  or  to 
uny  other,  abandoning,  or  implying  the  abandonment  of,  any  right 
in  the  fisheries  claimed  by  the  United  States,  they  cannot  subscribe. 
As  a  stipulation  merely,  that  the  parties  will  hereafter  negotiate 
concerning  the  subjects  in  question,  it  appears  also  unnecessary. 
Yet,  to  an  engagement  couched  in  general  terms,  so  as  to  embrace 
all  the  subjects  of  difference  not  yet  adjusted,  or  so  expressed  as  to 
•mply  in  no  manner  whatever  an  abandonment  of  any  right  claimed 
by  the  United  States,  the  undersigned  are  ready  to  agree.] 

Since  neither  of  the  two  additional  articles  proposed  by  the  Bri 
tish  plenipotentiaries  was  included  amongst,  or  is  connected  with, 
fhe  subjects  previously  brought  forward  by  them,  it  is  presumed 
they  are  offered  only  for  consideration,  as  embracing  objects  of 
common  and  equal  interest  to  both  parties.  The  undersigned  will 
accede  to  the  substance  of  the  article  to  promote  the  abolition  of 
the  slave  trade.  They  cannot  admit  the  other  article,  which  to 
them,  appears  unnecessary.  The  courts  of  the  United  States  will, 
without  it,  be  equally  open  to  the  claims  of  British  subjects  ;  and 
they  rely  that,  without  it,  the  British  courts  will  be  equally  open  to 
tjie  dainiF  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States. 


50 

The  undersigned  renew  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries  the  as 
surance  of  their  high  consideration. 

JOHN  qUINCY  ADAMS, 
JAMES  A.  BAYARD, 
HENRY  CLAY, 
JONATHAN  RUSSELL, 
ALBERT  GALLATIN. 

To  the  Plenipotentiaries  of  his  Britannic 

majesty,  &c.  &c.  &c. 


Such  of  the  islands  in  the  Bay  of  Passamaquoddy  as  are  claimed 
by  both  parties,  shall  remain  in  the  possession  of  the  party  in  whose 
occupation  they  may  be  at  the  time  of  the  exchange  of  the  ratifica 
tions  of  this  treaty,  until  the  decision  respecting  the  title  to  the  said 
islands  shall  have  been  made*  in  conformity  with  the  4th  article  of 
this  treaty.  But  if  such  decision  shall  not  have  taken  place  within 

years  after  the  exchange  of  the  ratifications  of  this  treaty, 

such  islands  shall  be  restored  to,  and  until  such  decision  may  take 
place,  shall  be  retained  by,  the  party  who  had  possession  of  the 
same  at  the  commencement  of  the  war.  No  disposition  made  by 
this  treaty  of  the  intermediate  possession  of  the  islands  and  territo 
ries,  claimed  by  both  parties,  shall,  in  any  manner  whatever,  be 
construed  to  affect  the  right  of  either. 


British  Note  jVo.  10,  in  answer  to  American  JVo.  8. 

The  undersigned  have  had  the  honour  to  receive  the  note  of  the 
American  plenipotentiaries,  dated  on  the  14th  instant,  stating  their 
consent  to  except  the  Passamaquoddy  Islands  from  the  mutual  re 
stitution  of  territory  captured  during  the  war,  provided  the  claim  of 
the  United  States  shall  not  be  in  any  manner  affected  thereby.  To 
the  article  proposed  by  the  American  plenipotentiaries,  so  far  as  it 
is  adapted  to  this  object,  the  undersigned  are  willing  to  agree  ;  but 
they  object,  as  before  intimated  by  them,  to  that  part  of  the  pro 
posed  article  which  would  make  it  imperative  on  the  commission 
ers  to  decide  the  question  within  any  fixed  time,  trusting  that  on 
this  head  the  American  plenipotentiaries  will  be  satisfied  with  their 
declaration,  that  it  is  the  intention  of  his  majesty's  government  to  do 
ail  that  belongs  to  them  to  obtain  a  decision  without  loss  of  time. 
The  project  of  the  article  subjoined,  will  be  found  to  omit  the  clause 
intended  to  enforce  a  decision  within  some  limited  time,  and  to  con 
tain  a  slight  alteration  in  the  third  clause,  by  substituting  in  the 
place  of  the  words  "  intermediate  possession,"  the  words,  "  as  to 
such  possession." 

0^=[So  far  as  regards  the  substitution  proposed  by  the  undersign 
ed,  for  the  last  clause  of  the  8th  article,  as  it  was  offered  solely  with 
the  hope  of  attaining  the  object  of  the  amendment  tendered  by  the 
American  plenipotentiaries  at  the  conference  of  the  1st  instant,  no 


51 

difficulty  will  be  made  in  withdrawing  it.  The  undersigned,  re 
ferring  to  the  declaration  made  by  them  at  the  conference  of  the 
8th  of  August,  that  the  privileges  of  fishing  within  the  limits  of  tl?e 
British  sovereignty,  and  of  using  the  British  territories  for  purposes 
connected  with  the  fisheries,  were  what  Great  Britain  did  not  in 
tend  to  grant  without  equivalent,  are  not  desirous  of  introducing 
any  article  upon  the  subject.  With  the  view  of  removing  what 
they  consider  as  the  only  objection  to  the  immediate  conclusion  of 
the  treaty,  the  undersigned  agree  to  adopt  the  proposal  made  by 
the  American  plenipotentiaries,  made  at  the  conference  of  the  1st 
instant,  and  repeated  in  their  last  note,  of  omitting  the  8th  article 
altogether.] 

The  undersigned  avail  themselves  of  this  opportunity  to  renew 
to  the  plenipotentiaries  of  the  United  States,  the  assurance  of  their 
hHi  consideration. 

GAMBIER, 

HENRY  GOULDBURN, 
WILLIAM  ADAMS. 
Ghent,  December  22,  1814. 

Accompanying  British  Note  A"o.  1 0. 

Such  of  the  islands  in  the  Bay  of  Passamaquoddy  as  are  claimed 
bv  both  parties,  shall  remain  in  the  possession  of  the  party  in  whose 
occupation  they  maybe  at  the  time  of  the  exchange  of  the  ratifica 
tions  of  this  treaty,  until  the  decision  respecting  the  title  to  the 

said  islands  shall  have  been  made  in  conformity  with  the  • 

article  of  this  treaty. 

No  disposition  made  by  this  treaty,  as  to  such  possession  of  the 
islands  and  territories  claimed  by  both  parties,  shall,  in  any  manner 
whatever,  be  construed  to  affect  the  right  of  either. 

Protocol  of  Conference. 

Ghent,  23d  December,  18l4. 

At  a  conference  held  this  day,  the  protocol  of  the  preceding  con 
ference  was  settled. 

The  American  plenipotentiaries  intimated  their  readiness  to  ac 
cede  to  the  propositions  contained  in  the  note  of  the  British  pleni 
potentiaries,  of  the  22d  instant. 

The  following  alterations  were  then  agreed  to  : 

In  the  first  article,  after  the  word  "  cease,"  omit  the  words  "af 
ter  the  exchange  of  the  ratifications,"  and  insert  "  as  soon  as  thr* 
treaty  shall  have  been  ratified  by  both  parties."  Substitute  the 
word  "  whatsoever"  for  the  words  v'  without  exception."  Restore 
the  words  *'  taken  by  either  party  from  the  other,"  in  the  room  ot" 
the  words  "  belonging  to  either  party  and  taken  by."  After  the 
words  "  signing  of  this  treaty,"  insert  the  words  "  excepting  onl\ 
(he  island?  hereinafter  mentioned."  After  the  words  "  reppeftivelv 


.52 

belong,'*  insert,  verbatim,  the  words  of  the  amendment  inclosed  in 
the  note  of  the  British  plenipotentiaries  of  the  22d  instant,  filling  up 
the  blank  with  the  word  "  fourth. ** 

2d  article.  The  second  article  was  altered  so  as  to  read  as  fol 
lows  : 

ARTICLE  II.  Immediately  after  the  ratification  of  this  treaty  by 
both  parties,  as  hereinafter  mentioned,  orders  shall  be  sent  to  the 
armies,  squadrons,  officers,  subjects,  and  citizens,  of  the  two  pow 
ers,  to  cease  from  all  hostilities;  and  to  prevent  all  causes  of  com 
plaint,  which  might  arise  on  account  of  the  prizes  which  may  be 
laken  at  sea  after  the  said  ratifications  of  this  treaty,  it  is  recipro 
cally  agreed,  that  all  vessels  and  effects  which  may  be  taken  after 
the  space  of  twelve  days  from  the  said  ratifications,  upon  all  parts 
of  the  coast  of  North  America,  from  the  latitude  of  twenty-three 
degrees  north  to  the  latitude  of  fifty  degrees  north,  and  as  far  east 
ward  in  the  Atlantic  ocean  as  the  thirty-sixth  degree  of  west  longi 
tude  from  the  meridian  of  Greenwich,  shall  be  restored  on  each 
side  ;  that  the  time  shall  be  thirty  days  in  all  other  parts  of  the 
Atlantic  ocean  north  of  the  equinoctial  line  or  equator ;  and  the 
same  time  for  the  British  and  Irish  Channels,  for  the  Gulf  of  Mexico, 
and  all  parts  of  the  West  Indies  ;  forty  days  for  the  North  Seas, 
for  the  Baltic,  and  for  all  other  parts  of  the  Mediterranean  ;  sixty 
days  for  the  Atlantic  ocean,  south  of  the  equator,  as  far  as  the 
latitude  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope  ;  ninety  days  for  every  other 
part  of  the  world  south  of  the  equator,  and  one  hundred  and  twenty 
days  for  all  other  parts  of  the  world  without  exception. 

It  was  agreed  that  the  article  respecting  prisoners  of  war  should 
be  the  third  article,  and  that  the  words  "  as  hereinafter  mention 
ed,"  should  be  substituted  for  the  words,  "  shall  have  been  ex» 
changed." 

The  articles  numbered  in  the  original  project  3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  to  be 
respectively  numbered  4,  5,  6,  7,  8. 

In  the  4th  article,  it  was  agreed  that  the  blank  should  be  filled 
up  with  the  words  "  St.  Andrews,  in  the  province  of  New-Bruns 
wick." 

In  the  5th  article,  it  was  agreed  that  the  blank  should  be  filled 
up  with  the  words  " St.  Andrews,  in  the  province  of  New-Bruns 
wick." 

Near  the  end  of  the  5th  article,  substitute  the  word  "  fourth" 
for  »  third." 

In  the  6th  article,  it  was  agreed  to  fill  up  the  blank  with  the 
words  "  Albany,  in  the  State  of  New- York,"  and  to  substitute  the 
word  "  fourth"  for  "  third,"  in  the  concluding  paragraph. 

In  the  7th  article,  substitute  the  word  "  fourth"  for  "  third,"  in 
the  last  paragraph. 

It  was  agreed  that  the  article  respecting  the  African  slave  trade 
should  be  the  I Oth  article,  and  that  the  words  "  use  their  best  en 
deavours,"  should  be  substituted  for  the  words  '*  exert  every 
means  in  their  power." 


53 

The  15th  article  of  the  project  to  be  numbered  1 1  ;  it  was 
agreed  to  insert  in  it,  after  the  words  "  on  both  sides,"  the  words 
*'  without  alteration  by  either  of"  the  contracting  parties." 

Omit  the  words  "  with  all  practicable  despatch."  Fill  up  the 
blank  with  the  word  "  four."  Insert  after  the  word  "  done,"  the 
words  "•  in  triplicate."  The  British  plenipotentiaries  urged  the 
article  formerly  proposed  by  them,  as  to  suits  of  law  to  be  prose 
cuted  by  the  citizens  or  subjects  of  one  nation  in  the  courts  of 
justice  of  the*  other.  Resisted  by  the  American  plenipotentia 
ries. 

The  conference  was  adjourned  to  the  24th  inst.  for  the  purpose 
of  signing  the  treaty. 


The  American  Plenipotentiaries  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

GHENT,  25th  December,  1814. 

SIR  :  We  have  the  honour  of  transmitting  herewith,  one  of  the 
three  copies  of  the  treaty  of  peace  between  Great  Britain  and  the 
United  States,  signed  last  evening  by  the  plenipotentiaries  of  his 
Britannic  majesty  and  by  us. 

The  papers,  of  which  copies  are  likewise  now  forwarded,  will 
exhibit  to  you  so  fully  the  progress  of  the  negotiation  since  the 
departure  of  the  Chauncey,  that  few  additional  remarks  from  us 
will  be  nee<53sary.  It  may  be  proper  for  us,  however,  to  state, 
that  in  the  interval  between  the  time  when  our  first  project  of  a 
treaty  Was  sent  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  and  that  when  they 
communicated  to  us  the  answer  to  it,  the  despatches  which  we 
had  sent  by  Mr.  Dallas,  and  the  instructions  to  us,  which  had  been 
published  in  the  United  States,  were  republished  in  England. 

In  declining  to  insist  on  the  articles  respecting  impressment  and 
indemnities,  we  made  a  formal  declaration,  that  the  rights  of  both 
parties,  on  the  subject  of  seamen  and  the  claims  to  indemnities  for 
losses  and  damages  sustained  prior  to  the  commencement  of  the 
war,  should  not  be  affected  or  impaired  by  the  omission,  in  the 
treaty,  of  a  specific  provision  on  these  two  subjects. 

From  the  time  when  the  project  of  the  treaty,  presented  by  us, 
was  returned,  with  the  proposed  alterations,  it  was  apparent,  that 
unless  new  pretension-  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  should  be  ad 
vanced,  the  only  important  diilerences  remaining  to  be  discussed, 
were  those  relating  to  the  mutual  restoration  of  territory,  taken 
during  the  war  ;  to  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  by  British 
subjects,  and  to  the  right  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  to  the 
fisheries  within  the  British  jurisdiction.  Instead  of  a  general  res 
titution  of  captured  territory,  which  we  had  proposed,  the  British 
government,  at  first,  wished  to  confine  it  to  the  territory  taken  by 
either  party  belonging  to  the  other.  On  our  objecting,  that  this 
would  make  each  party  the  judge,  whether  territory  taken  did  or 
did  not  belong  to  the  other,  and  thereby  occasion  new  disputes, 


54 

acknowledged  it  to  be  their  object,  that  each  party  should, 
until  a  decision  had  taken  place  with  respect  to  the  title,  retail 
possession  of  all  the  territory  claimed  by  both  parties,  which  might 
have  been  taken  by  such  party  during  the  war.  They  proposed, 
however,  to  limit  the  exception  from  mutual  restitution,  to  the  is 
lands  in  the  Bay  of  Passamaquoddy.  As  it  had  been,  on  both  sides, 
admitted,  that  the  title  to  these  islands  was  disputed,  and  as  the 
method  of  settling  amicably  those  disputes  was  provided  for  in  the 
treaty,  we  had  not  expected  that  the  British  government  would  ad 
here  to  the  demand  of  retaining  the  temporary  possession  of  those 
islands.  We  insisted,  therefore,  on  their  being  included  in  the 
general  restoration,  until  we  had  reason  to  believe  that  our  further 
perseverance  would  have  hazarded  the  conclusion  of  the  peace 
itself;  we  finally  consented,  as  an  alternative  preferable  to  the 
continuance  of  the  war,  to  this  exception,  upon  condition  that  it 
should  not  be  understood  as  impairing,  in  any  manner,  the  right  of 
the  United  States  to  these  islands.  We  also  urged  for  a  stipulation, 
requiring  an  ultimate  decision  upon  the  title  within  a  limited  time  ? 
but  to  this  we  also  found  opposed  an  insuperable  objection,  and  w« 
were  finally  induced  to  accept,  in  its  stead,  a  declaration  of  the 
British  plenipotentiaries  that  no  unnecessary  delay  of  the  decision 
should  be  interposed  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain. 

At  the  first  conference  on  the  8th  of  August,  the  British  pleni 
potentiaries  had  notified  to  us,  that  the  British  government  did  not 
intend,  henceforth,  to  allow  to  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
without  an  equivalent,  the  liberties  to  fish,  and  to  dry  and  cure 
fish,  within  the  exclusive  British  jurisdiction,  stipulated  in  their 
favour,  by  the  latter  part  of  the  third  article  of  the  treaty  of  peace 
of  1783.  And,  in  their  note  of  the  19th  of  August,  the  British 
plenipotentiaries  had  demanded  a  new  stipulation  to  secure  to 
British  subjects  the  right  of  navigating  the  Mississippi :  a  demand, 
which,  unless  warranted  by  another  article  of  that  same  treaty  of 
1783,  we  could  not  perceive  that  Great  Britain  had  any  colourable 
pretence  for  making.  Our  instructions  had  forbidden  us  to  suffer 
our  right  to  the  fisheries  to  be  brought  into  discussion,  and  had  not 
authorized  us  to  make  any  distinction  in'  the  several  provisions  of 
the  third  article  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  or  between  that  article  and 
any  other  of  the  same  treaty.  We  had  no  equivalent  to  offer  for  a 
new  recognition  of  our  right  to  any  part  of  the  fisheries,  and  we 
had  no  power  to  grant  any  equivalent  which  might  be  asked  for  it 
by  the  British  government.  We  contended  that  the  whole  treaty 
of  1783,  must  be  considered  as  one  entire  and  permanent  compact, 
not  liable,  like  ordinary  treaties,  to  be  abrogated  by  a  subsequent 
war  between  the  parties  to  it ;  as  an  instrument  recognising  the 
rights  and  liberties  enjoyed  by  the  people  of  the  United  States  as 
an  independent  nation,  and  containing  the  terms  and  conditions  ou 
which  the  two  parts  of  one  empire  had  mutually  agreed  thence 
forth  to  constitute  two  distinct  and  separate  nations.  In  consent-* 
ing,  by  that  treaty,  that  a  part  of  the  North  American  continent 


55 

s-hould  remain  subject  to  the  British  jurisdiction,  the  people  of  the 
United  States  had  reserved  to  themselves  the  liberty,  which  they 
had  ever  before  enjoyed,  of  fishing  upon  that  part  of  the  coasts, 
and  of  drying  and  curing  fish  upon  the  shores  ;  and  this  reserva 
tion  had  been  agreed  to  by  the  other  contracting  party.  We  saw 
not  why  this  liberty,  then  no  new  grant,  but  a  mere  recognition  of 
a  prior  right,  always  enjoyed,  should  be  forfeited  by  a  war,  any 
more  than  any  other  of  the  rights  of  our  national  independence, 
or  why  we  should  need  a  new  stipulation  for  its  enjoyment  more 
Jhan  we  needed  a  new  article  to  declare  that  the  king  of  Great 
Britain  treated  with  us  as  free,  sovereign,  and  independent  states. 
We  stated  this  principle,  in  general  terms,  to  the  British  plenipo 
tentiaries,  in  the  note  which  we  sent  to  them  with  our  project  of 
Ihe  treaty  ;  and  we  alleged  it  as  the  ground  upon  which  no  new 
stipulation  was  deemed  by  our  government  necessary  to  secure  to 
the  people  of  the  United  States  all  the  rights  and  liberties,  stipu 
lated  in  their  favour,  by  the  treaty  of  1783.  No  reply  to  that  part 
of  our  note  was  given  by  the  British  plenipotentiaries  ;  but,  in  re 
turning  our  project  of  a  treaty,  they  added  a  clause  to  one  of  the 
articles,  stipulating  a  right  for  British  subjects  to  navigate  the  Mis 
sissippi.  Without  ad  verting  to  the  ground  of  prior  and  immemorial 
usage,  if  the  principle  were  just  that  the  treaty  of  1783,  from  its 
peculiar  character,  remained  in  force  in  all  its  parts,  notwithstand 
ing  the  war,  no  new  stipulation  was  necessary  to  secure  to  the  sub 
jects  of  Great  Britain  the  right  of  navigating  the  Mississippi,  as  far 
as t  that  right  was  secured  by  the  treaty  of  1783  ;  as,  on  the  other 
hand,  no  stipulation  was  necessary  to  secure  to  the  people  of  the 
United  States  the  liberty  to  fish,  and  to  dry  and  cure  fish,  within  the 
exclusive  jurisdiction  of  Great  Britain.  If  they  asked  the  naviga 
tion  of  the  Mississippi  as  a  new  claim,  they  could  not  expect  we 
should  grant  it  without  an  equivalent  :  if  they  asked  it  because  it 
had  been  granted  in  1783,  they  must  recognise  the  claim  of  the 
people  of  the  United  States  to  the  liberty  to  fish  and  to  dry  and  cure 
fish,  in  question.  To  place  both  points  beyond  all  future  contro 
versy,  a  majority  of  us  determined  to  ofler  to  admit  an  article  con 
firming  both  rights  :  or,  we  offered  at  the  same  time,  to  be  silent 
in  the  treaty  upon  both,  and  to  leave  out  altogether  the  article  de 
fining  the  boundary  from  the  Lake  of  the  Woods  westward.  They 
finally  agreed  to  this  last  proposal,  but  not  until  they  had  proposed 
an  article  stipulating  for  a  future  negotiation  for  an  equivalent  to  be 
given  by  Great  Britain  for  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  and  by 
the  United  States  for  the  liberty  as  to  the  fisheries  within  the  Bri 
tish  jurisdiction.  This  article  was  unnecessary,  with  respect  to 
its  professed  object,  since  both  governments  had  it  in  their  power, 
without  it,  to  negotiate  upon  these  subjects  if  they  pleased.  We 
rejected  it,  although  its  adoption  would  have  secured  the  boun 
dary  of  the  49th  degree  of  latitude  west  of  the  Lake  of  the  Woods, 
it  would  have  been  a  formal  abandonment,  on  our  part,  of 


our  claim  to  the  liberty  as  to  the  fisheries,  recognised  by  the  trea 
ty  of  1783. 

You  will  perceive  by  the  correspondence  that  the  9th  article 
was  offered  us  as  a  sine  qua  non  and  an  ultimatum.  We  accepted 
it,  not  without  much  hesitation,  as  the  only  alternative  to  a  rup 
ture  of  the  negotiation,  and  with  a  perfect  understanding  that  our 
government  was  free  to  reject  it,  as  we  were  not  authorized  to  sub 
scribe  to  it. 

To  guard  against  any  accident  which  might  happen  in  the  trans 
mission  of  a  single  copy  of  the  treaty  to  the  United  States,  the  Bri 
tish  plenipotentiaries  have  consented  to  execute  it  in  triplicate  : 
and  as  the  treaty  with  the  British  ratification  may  be  exposed  to  the 
same  danger,  the  times  for  the  cessation  of  hostilities,  the  restora 
tion  of  captures  at  sea,  and  the  release  of  prisoners,  have  been  fixed, 
not  from  the  exchange  of  ratifications,  but  from  the  ratification  on 
both  sides,  without  alteration  by  either  of  the  contracting  parties. 
We  consented  to  the  introduction  of  this  latter  provision,  at  the 
desire  of  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  who  were  willing  to  take  a 
full,  but  were  unwilling  to  incur  the  risk  of  a  partial  ratification,  as 
the  period  from  which  the  peace  should  be  considered  as  concluded. 
We  are  informed  by  them  that  Mr.  Baker,  their  secretary,  is  to 
go  out  to  America  with  the  British  ratification. 

We  have  the  honour  to  be,  very  respectfully,  sir,  your  most 
humble  and  obedient  servants, 

JOHN  QJJINCY  ADAMS, 
J.  A.  BAYARD, 
HENRY  CLAY, 
JONATHAN  RUSSELL, 
ALBERT  GALLAT1N. 


Extract  of  a  letter  from  Jonathan  Russell,  esq.  to  the  Secretary  of 
State,  dated  Ghent,  (25th  December,  1814. 

"  My  necessary  occupation,  at  this  moment,  in  aiding  my  col 
leagues  to  prepare  our  joint  despatches,  puts  it  out  of  my  power  to 
furnish  you  with  any  details  or  observations  exclusively  my  own. 

"  As,  however,  you  will  perceive  by  our  despatch  to  you  of  this 
date,  that  a  majority  only  of  the  mission  was  in  favour  of  offorino- 
to  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  an  article  confirming  the  British 
right  to  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  and  ours  to  the  liberty  as 
to  the  fisheries,  it  becomes  me,  in  candour,  to  acknowledge,  that  I 
was  in  the  minority  on  that  question.  I  must  reserve  to  myself 
the  power  of  communicating  to  you,  hereafter,  the  reasons  which 
influenced  me  to  differ  from  a  majority  of  my  colleagues  on  that 
occasion  ;  and  if  they  be  insufficient  to  support  my  opinion,  I  per 
suade  myself  they  will,  at  least,  vindicate  my  motives." 


57 

Mr.  Gallatin  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

Ghent,  25th  December,  1&14. 

SIR  :  The  treaty  which  we  signed  yesterday,  with  the  British 
ministers,  is,  in  my  opinion,  as  favourable  as  could  be  expected, 
Under  existing  circumstances,  so  far  as  they  were  known  to  us. — 
The  attitude  taken  by  the  State  of  Massachusetts,  and  the  appear 
ances  in  some  of  the  neighbouring  States,  had  a  most  unfavourable 
effect.  Of  the  probable  result  of  the  Congress  at  Vienna,  we  had 
no  correct  information.  The  views  of  all  the  European  powers 
were  precisely  known,  from  day  to  day,  to  the  British  ministry. 
From  neither  of  them  did  we,  in  any  shape,  receive  any  intimation 
of  their  intentions,  of  the  general  prospect  of  Europe,  or  of  the 
interest  they  took  in  our  contest  with  Great  Britain.  I  have  some 
reason  to  believe  that  all  of  them  were  desirous  that  it  might  conti 
nue.  They  did  not  intend  to  assist  us  ;  they  appeared  indifferent 
about  our  difficulties,  but  they  rejoiced  at  any  thing  which  might 
occupy,  and  eventually  weaken  our  enemy.  The  manner  in  which 
the  campaign  has  terminated  ;  the  evidence  afforded,  by  its  events, 
of  our  ability  to  resist,  alone,  the  now  very  formidable  military 
power  of  England  ;  and  our  having  been  able,  without  any  foreign 
assistance,  and  after  she  had  made  such  an  effort,  to  obtain  peace 
on  equal  terms,  will  raise  our  character  and  consequence  in  Eu 
rope.  This,  joined  with  the  naval  victories,  and  the  belief  that 
we  alone  can  fight  the  English  on  their  element,  will  make  us  to  be. 
courted  as  much  as  we  have  been  neglected  by  foreign  govern 
ments.  As  to  the  people  of  Europe,  public  opinion  was  already 
most  decidedly  in  our  favour.  I  anticipate  a  settlement  with  Spain 
on  our  own  terms,  and  the  immediate  chastisement  of  the  Alge- 
rines.  Permit  me  to  suggest  the  propriety  of  despatching  a  squad- 
rou  for  that  purpose,  without  losing  a  single  moment. 

I  have  little  to  add  to  our  public  despatch  on  the  subject  of  the 
terms  of  the  treaty.  I  really  think,  that  there  i?  nothing  but  nomi 
nal  in  the  Indian  article,  as  adopted.  With  respect  to  precedent^ 
you  will  find  two,  though  neither  is  altogether  in  point,  viz.  the 

—  article  of  the  treaty  of  Utrecht,  and  the  latter  part  of  the 

article  of  our  treaty  with  Spain.     You  know,  that  there  was 

no  alternative  between  breaking  off  the  negotiations,  and  accepting 
the  article  ;  and  that  we  accepted  it,  only  as  provisional,  and  sub 
ject  to  your  approbation  or  rejection. 

The  exception  of  Moose  Island,  from  the  general  restoration  of 
territory,  is  the  only  point  on  which  it  is  possible  that  we  might 
have  obtained  an  alteration,  if  we  had  adhered  to  our  opposition 
to  it.  The  British  government  had  long  fluctuated  on  the  question 
of  peace  :  a  favourable  account  from  Vienna,  the  report  of  some 
success  in  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  or  any  other  incident,  might  pro 
duce  a  change  in  their  disposition  ;  they  had,  already,  after  the 
question  had  been  referred  to  them,  declared  that  they  could  not 
consent  to  a  relinquishment  of  that  point.  We  thought  it  too  ha- 


58 

zurdous  to  risk  the  peace  on  the  question  of  the  temporary  posses 
sion  of  that  small  island,  since  the  question  of  title  was  fully  re 
served  ;  and  it  was,  therefore,  no  cession  of  territory. 

On  the  subject  of  the  fisheries,  within  the  jurisdiction  of  Great 
Britain,  we  have  certainly  done  all  that  could  be  done.  If,  accord 
ing  to  the  construction  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  which  we  assumed, 
the  right  was  not  abrogated  by  the  war,  it  remains  entire,  since  we 
most  explicitly  refused  to  renounce  it,  either  directly  or  indirectly. 
In  that  case,  it  is  only  an  unsettled  subject  of  difference  between 
the  two  countries.  If  the  right  must  be  considered  as  abrogated  by 
the  war,  we  cannot  regain  it  without  an  equivalent.  We  had  none 
to  give  but  the  recognition  of  their  right  to  navigate  the  Mississippi, 
and  we  offered  it.  On  this  last  supposition,  this  right  is  also  lost 
to  them  ;  and,  in  a  general  point  of  view,  we  have  certainly  lost 
nothing.  But  we  have  done  all  that  was  practicable  in  support  of 
the  right  to  those  fisheries — 1st,  by  the  ground  we  assumed,  re 
specting  the  construction  of  the  treaty  of  1783 — 2d,  by  the  offer  to 
recognise  the  British  right  to  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi — 
3dly,  by  refusing  to  accept  from  Great  Britain  both  her  implied  re 
nunciation  of  the  right  of  that  navigation,  and  the  convenient  bound 
ary  of  49  degrees,  for  the  whole  extent  of  our  and  her  territories, 
west  of  the  Lake  of  the  Woods,  rather  than  to  make  an  implied 
renunciation,  on  our  part,  to  the  right  of  America  to  those  particu 
lar  fisheries. 

I  believe  that  Great  Britain  is  very  desirous  of  obtaining  the 
northern  part  of  Maine,  say  from  about  47  degrees  north  latitude, 
to  the  northern  extremity  of  that  district,  as  claimed  by  us.  They 
hope  that  the  river,  which  empties  into  the  Bay  des  Chaleurs,  in 
the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  has  its  source  so  far  west  as  to  intervene 
between  the  head  waters  of  the  river  St.  John's,  and  those  of  the 
streams  emptying  into  the  river  St.  Lawrence  ;  so  that  the  line  north 
from  the  source  of  the  river  St.  Croix  will  first  strike  the  heights 
of  land  which  divide  the  waters  emptying  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean 
(river  St.  John's)  from  those  emptying  into  the  Gulf  of  St.  Law 
rence,  (river  des  Chaleurs,)  and  afterwards  the  heights  of  land 
which  divide  the  waters  emptying  into  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence, 
(river  des  Chaleurs,)  from  those  emptying  into  the  river  St.  Law 
rence  ;  but,  that  the  said  line  never  can,  in  the  words  of  the  treaty, 
strike  any  spot  of  land  actually  dividing  the  waters  emptying  into 
the  Atlantic  ocean,  from  those  which  fa'll  into  the  river  St.  Law 
rence.  Such  will  be  the  foundation  of  their  disputing  our  claim 
to  the  northern  part  of  that  territory  ;  but,  feeling  that  it  is  not 
very  solid,  I  am  apt  to  think  that  they  will  be  disposed  to  offer  the 
whole  of  Fassamaquoddy  bay,  and  the  disputed  fisheries,  as  an, 
equivalent  for  the  portion  of  northern  territory,  which  they  want, 
in  order  to  connect  New-Brunswick  and  Quebec.  This  may  ac 
count  for  their  tenacity  with  respect  to  the  temporary  possession 
of  Moose  Island,  and  for  their  refusing  to  accept  the  recognition  of 
their  right  to  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  provided  they  re 
cognise  ours  to  the  fisheries. 


59 

That  northern  territory  is  of  no  importance  to  us,  and  belongs  to 
the  United  States,  and  not  to  Massachusetts,  which  has  not  the  sha 
dow  of  a  claim  to  any  land  north  of  4o  degrees,  to  the  eastward  of 
the  Penobscot  river,  as  you  may  easily  convince  yourself  of,  by  re 
curring  to  her  charters. 

I  have  the  honour  to  be,  with  respect,  &c. 

ALBERT  GALLATIN. 

The  Hon.  the  Secretary  of  State 

of  the  United  States,  Washington. 


Extract  from  the  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States, 

APRIL  18,  1822. 

Mr.  Floyd  submitted  the  following  resolution,  viz  : 

Resolved,  That  the  President  of  the  United  States  be  requested  to  cause  to 
be  communicated  to  this  House,  if  not  injurious  to  the  public  good,  any  letter 
or  communication  which  may  have  been  received  from  Jonathan  Russell,  Es 
quire,  one  of  the  Ministers  of  the  United  States  who  concluded  the  Treaty  of 
Ghent,  after  the  signature  of  that  Treaty,  and  which  was  written  in  conform 
ity  to  the  indications  contained  in  said  Minister's  letter,  dated  at  Ghent,  25th 
December,  1814. 

The  said  resolution  was  read  and  ordered  to  lie  on  the  table  one  day. 

APRIL  19,  1822. 

The  resolution  submitted  by  Mr.  Floyd,  on  yesterday,  was  taken  up,  read, 
and  agreed  to  by  the  House. 


MESSAGE  from  the  President  of  the  United  States,  to  the  House, 
of  Representatives,  of  4th  May,  1822,^Tyrummr  tv  tJieir-Resoh^- 
tion  of  IQth  April,  1822. 

To  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States: 

In  compliance  with  a  resolution  of  the  House  of  Representatives, 
of  the  19th  of  April,  requesting  the  President  "to  cause  to  be 
communicated  to  the  House,  if  not  injurious  to  the  public  interest, 
any  letter  which  may  have  been  received  from  Jonathan  Rusself, 
one  of  the  Ministers  who  concluded  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  in  conform 
ity  with  the  indications  contained  in  his  letter  of  25th  of  December, 
1814,"  I  have  to  state,  that,  having  referred  the  resolution  to  the 
Secretary  of  State,  and  it  appearing,  by  a  report  from  him,  that  no 
such  document  had  been  deposited  among  the  archives  of  the  De 
partment,  I  examined  and  found  among  my  private  papers  a  letter 
of  that  description,  marked  "private"  by  himself.  I  transmit  a 
copy  of  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  by  which  it  appears 
that  Mr.  Russell,  on  being  apprized  that  the  document  referred  to 
by  the  resolution  had  not  been  deposited  in  the  Department  of  State, 


I 


60 

delivered  there  "  a  paper  purporting  to  be  the  duplicate  of  a  letter 
written  by  him  from  Paris,  on  the  llth  of  February,  1815,  to  the 
then  Secretary  of  State,  to  be  communicated  to  the  House,  as  the 
letter  called  tor  by  the  resolution." 

On  the  perusal  of  the  document  called  for,  I  find  that  it  commu 
nicates  a  difference  of  opinion  between  Mr.  Russell  and  a  majority 
of  his  colleagues,  in  certain  transactions  which  occurred  in  the  ne 
gotiations  at  Ghent,  touching  interests  which  have  been  since  satis 
factorily  adjusted  by  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain.  The  view  which  Mr.  Russell  presents  of  his  own  con 
duct,  and  that  of  his  colleagues,  in  those  transactions,  will,  it  is 
presumed,  call  from  the  two  surviving  members  of  that  mission, 
who  differed  from  him,  a  reply,  containing  their  view  of  those 
transactions,  and  of  the  conduct  of  the  parties  in  them,  and  who, 
should  his  letter  be  communicated  to  the  House  of  Representatives, 
will  also  claim  that  their  reply  should  be  communicated  in  like  man 
ner  by  the  Executive — a  claim  which,  on  the  principle  of  equal 
justice,  could  not  be  resisted.  The  Secretary  of  State,  one  of  the 
Ministers  referred  to,  has  already  expressed  a  desire  that  Mr.  Rus 
sell's  letter  should  be  communicated,  and  that  1  would  transmit,  at 
the  same  time,  a  communication  from  him  respecting  it. 

On  full  consideration  of  the  subject,  I  have  thought  it  would  be 
improper  for  the  Executive  to  communicate  the  letter  called  for, 
unless  the  House,  on  a  knowledge  of  these  circumstances^  should 
desire  it ;  in  which  case  the  document  called  for  shall  be  commu 
nicated,  accompanied  by  a  report  from  the  Secretary  of  State,  as 
above  suggested.  1  have  directed  a  copy  to  be  delivered  to  Mr. 
Russell,  to  be  disposed  of  as  he  may  think  proper,  and  have  caused 
the  original  to  be  deposited  in  the  Department  of  State,  with  in 
struction  to  deliver  a  copy  to  any  person*  v^ho  nuy  be  interested. 

JAMES  MONROE, 

Washington,  May  4th,  1822. 


Department  of  State, 

Washington,  May  3,  1822. 

The  Secretary  of  State,  to  whom  was  referred  the  resolution  ot 
the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  19th  ultimo,  requesting  the 
President  "  to  cause  to  be  communicated  to  the  House,  if  not  inju 
rious  to  the  public  good,  any  letter  or  communication  which  may 
have  been  received  from  Jonathan  Russell,  Esquire,  one  of  the 
Ministers  of  the  United  States  who  concluded  the  treaty  of  Ghent, 
after  the  signature  of  that  treaty,  and  which  was  written  in  con 
formity  to  the  indications  contained  in  s  tid  Minister's  letter,  dated 
at  Ghent,  25th  of  December,  1814,"  has  the  honour  of  reporting 
to  the  President,  that,  until  after  the  adoption  of  the  said  resolution 
by  the  House,  there  was  upon  the  iiles  of  the  Department  of  State, 
no  letter  from  Mr.  Russell,  of  the  description  mentioned  therein  ;. 


Gl 

but  that  Mr.  Russell  himself  has  since  delivered  at  the  Depart 
ment,  a  communication  purporting  to  be  the  duplicate  of  a  letter 
written  by  him  from  Paris,  on  the  llth  of  February,  1815,  to  the 
then  Secretary  of  State,  to  be  communicated  to  the  House,  as  the 
letter  called  for  by  their  resolution. 

A  copy  of  this  paper  is  herewith  submitted  to  the  President. 

JOHN  QU1NCY  ADAMS. 

Extract  from,  the  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States, 
MAY  6th,  1822. 

Mr.  Fuller  submitted  the  following  resolution,  to  wit : 

Resolved,  That  the  President  of  the  United  States  be  requested  to  commu 
nicate  to  this  House  the  letter  of  Jonathan  Russell,  esquire,  referred  to  in  his 
message  of  the  4-th  of  May,  instant;  together  with  such  communications  as  he 
may  have  received  relative  thereto,  from  any  of  the  other  ministers  of  the 
United  States  who  negotiated  the  treaty  of  Ghent. 

The  said  resolution  was  received  by  unanimous  consent  of  the  House,  read, 
and  ordered  to  lie  on  the  table  one  day. 

MAY  7th,  1822. 

The  House  took  up  and  proceeded  to  consider  the  resolution  submitted  by 
Mr.  Fuller,  yesterday,  arid  the  same  being  read, 

Mr.  McCarty  moved  that  it  lie  on  the  table  ;  which,  being  disagreed  to. 
The  question  was  taken  on  agreeing  to  the  resolution, 
And  passed  in  the  affirmative. 

Extract  from  the  National  Intelligencer  of  13/ft  June,  1822. 

CONGRESSIONAL. 

[It  is  one  of  the  most  vexatious  incidents  that  has  ever  occurred  to  us,  of 
lesser  importance,  that  we  mislaid  our  notes  of  the  proceedings  which  took 
place  in  the  House  of  Representatives  on  the  7th  May  last,  on  Mr.  Fuller's 
motion,  respecting  Mr.  Russell's  letter,  and  on  the  bill  authorizing  the  change 
of  the  site  of  the  canal  in  this  city,  both  of  which  debates  we  hoped  to  have 
published.  We  have  the  more  reason  to  regret  the  circumstance,  because  a 
curiosity  has  been  expressed  to  see  what  was  said  on  Mi.  Fuller's  motion.  A 
friend,  who  attended  to  wliat  passed,  has  furnished  us,  from  memory,  with  the 
following  sketch  of  the  proceedings  on  that  occasion.  It  is  brief,  but  is  believed 
to  be  substantially  correct.] 

HOUSE    OF    REPRESE1VTATIVKS — 7th  May,  1822. 

Mr.  Fuller's  resolution,  whicty  was  submitted  yesterday,  request 
ing  the  President  to  communicate  the  letter  of  Jonathan  Russell, 
esq.  relating  to  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  together  with  such  communi 
cations  as  had  been  received  from  the  other  plenipotentiaries,  or 
either  of  them,  in  explanation  of  the  letter  of  Mr.  R.  was  called 
up,  and,  on  the  question  of  its  adoption— 
Mr.  Floyd  said,  he  had  moved  the  original  resolution  for  the 
Ghent  correspondence,  with  an  expectation  that  it  might  throw 
some  light  on  the  importance  of  the  Columbia  river,  and  the  bill 
before  the  House  proposing  an  establishment  there.  As  the  Pre 
sident,  however,  had  not  thought  proper  to  communicate  the  letter 
in  question,  when  specially  called  for,  he  (Mr.  F.)  had  moved  to 

8 


62 

hate  the  message  committed  to  a  committee  of  which  lie  was  a 
member,  but  the  motion  had  not  prevailed.  He  had,  however, 
hoped,  since  he  had  desisted  from  again  requesting  the  letter,  that 
no  other  gentleman  would  have  proposed  it.  It  was  manifest  that 
it  had  been  withheld  to  prevent  the  excitement  and  ill  blood  which 
the  contents  might  produce.  He  hoped  the  resolution  would  not 
be  adopted. 

Mr.  Fuller  said,  he  was  happy  to  hear  from  the  gentleman  from 
Virginia^  that  he  had  been  induced  to  abstain  from  a  further,  call 
for  Mr.  R's  letter  to  prevent  the  excitement  of"  ill  blood,"  and  he 
would  by  no  means  be  behind  him,  (Mr.  Floyd,)  in  such  a  laud 
able  intent  ;  but,  in  his  opinion,  the  communication  of  the  letter, 
and  of  the  explanation  of  the  other  commissioners,  to  Congress 
and  to  the  public,  would  have  a  far  greater  tendency  to  allay  the 
ill  blood,  if  any  existed,  than  the  suppression  of  the  explanation^ 
while  the  letter  was  in  effect  made  public.  The  President's  mes 
sage  informed  us,  Mr.  Fuller  said,  that  he  had  transmitted  the  letter 
to  the  Department  of  State,  and  directed  copies  of  it  to  be  delivered 
to  persons  who  should  apply  ;  consequently,  it  would  soon  reach 
the  newspapers,  while  the  comments  or  explanations  which  ought 
to  accompany  it  would  be  effectually  suppressed.  Nothing,  in  his 
opinion,  could  be  more  unfair  than  thus  to  stifle  all  reply.  It  re 
minded  him,  he  said,  of  what  he  had  of  late  frequently  witnessed 
in  this  House,  when  some  bill  was  pending,  and,  before  it  was  un 
derstood,  one  of  its  opposers  would  make  a  speech  against  it,  and 
conclude  with  a  motion  to  lay  it  on  the  table,  which  precluded  all 
debate,  and,  consequently,  all  explanation.  The  indignation  pro 
duced  by  such  a  course  every  gentleman  must  have  observed  and 
sometimes  have  felt.  There  was  nothing  so  safe  and  honourable 
as  a  full  disclosure  of  the  statements  of  both  sides.  He  regretted, 
he  said,  that  his  colleague,  the  writer  of  the  letter,  was  not  in  his 
seat,  as  be  was  sure  he  could  not  object  to  the  call,  more  especially 
as  it  appeared  from  the  message,  that  the  gentleman  himself  had 
furnished  to  the  Department  a  duplicate  or  copy  of  that  letter  to 
be  communicated  to  Congress  before  the  original  had  been  found. 
As  to  the  suggestion  that  the  Ghent  correspondence  or  the  letter 
in  question  could  throw  a  single  ray  of  light  on  the  subject  of  the 
occupation  of  Columbia  river,  it  wa»too  improbable,  Mr.  Fuller  said, 
to  have  ever  entered  his  mind  ;  but  if  the  gentleman  from  Virginin 
(Mr.  Floyd)  had  expected  it  at  first,  he  could  see  no  reason  for 
his  giving  over  the  pursuit.  He  hoped  the  House  would  see  the 
obvious  justice  of  adopting  the  resolution. 

Mr.  Cocke  said,  he  could  see  no  reason  for  calling  for  the  letter: 
the  President  had  declined  communicating  it,  and,  therefore,  he 
thought  it  not  proper  in  the  House  to  persist  in  the  call. 

Mr.  Sergeant  said,  he  rose  to  correct  the  error  into  which  the 
gentleman  from  Tennessee  (Mr.  Cocke)  had  fallen,  in  supposing 
the  President  had  "  declined"  communicating  Mr.  Russell's  letter. 
It  appeared,  on  recurring  to  the  message,  (a  part  of  which  Mr.  S. 


63 

read,)  that  he  merely  declined  sending  the  letter,  without  also 
sending  such  answer  or  explanation  as  the  majority  of  the  commis 
sioners  who  negotiated  the  treaty,  or  any  of  them,  should  request- 
On  the  other  hand,  the  President  signifies  his  willingness  to  com 
municate  both  together  ;  and  Mr.  S.  said,  he  could  see  no  objec 
tion  whatever  to  the  resolution,  which  seemed,  under  existing 
circumstances,  to  ask  no  more  than  was  due  to  the  survivers  of  the 
commissioners,  whose  conduct  was  implicated,  and  who  had  aright 
to  be  heard. 

Mr.  Cocke,  after  hearing  the  message  read,  the  terms  of  which, 
he  said,  he  had  not  before  so  particularly  attended  to,  withdrew 
his  opposition. 

Mr.  Hardin  said,  he  was  glad  the  letter  was  called  for,  and  he 
should  vote  for  the  resolution,  as  it  would  show  the  western  peo 
ple  in  what  manner  their  interests  were  disregarded  or  sacrificed  ; 
that  the  commissioners  offered  to  give  up  the  navigation  of  the  Mis 
sissippi  to  secure  the  fisheries  of  the  east. 

The  resolution  was  then  adopted  with  only  one  or  two  voices  in 
the  negative. 


MESSAGE  from  the  President  of  the  United  States,  transmitting  (pursuant  to 
a  resolution  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  of  1th  May,)  a  Letter  of  Jona 
than  Russell,  late  one  of  the  Plenipotentiaries  of  the  United  States,  at  the 
negotiation  of  Ghent,  with  Remarks  thereon,  by  the  Secretary  oj  State. 

To  the  House  of  Representatives: 

In  compliance  with  the  resolution  of  the  House  of  Represented 
lives  of  the  7th  of  May,  requesting  the  President  of  the  United 
States  "  to  communicate  to  that  House  the  letter  of  Jonathan  Rus 
sell,  esq.  referred  to  in  his  message  of  the  4th  instant,  together 
with  such  communications  as  he  may  have  received  relative  there 
to,  from  any  of  the  other  ministers  of  the  United  States  who  ne 
gotiated  the  treaty  of  Ghent,1'  I  herewith  transmit  a  report  from 
the  Secretary  of  State,  with  the  documents  called  for  by  that  reso 
lution.  JAMES  MONROE, 

Washington,  May  7,  1822. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  7th  May,  1822. 

The  Secretary  of  State  has  the  honour  of  transmitting  to  the 
President  of  the  United  States  his  remarks  upon  the  paper  depo 
sited  at  the  Department  of  State  on  the  22d  of  last  month,  by 
Jonathan  Russell,  late  one  of  the  plenipotentiaries  of  the  United 
States,  at  the  negotiation  of  Ghent,  to  be  communicated  to  the 
House  of  Representatives,  as  the  letter  called  tor  by  their  resolu 
tion  of  the  19th  of  that  month  ;  and  the  Secretary  of  State  respect 
fully  requests  that  the  President  would  transmit  to  the  House  of 
Representatives  these  Remarks,  together  with  the  above  mentioned 
communication  of  Mr.  Russell,  on  the  renewal  of  the  call  therefor 
ty  the  House.  JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS. 


64 


Mr.  Russell  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 
(PRIVATE.) 

Paris,  llth  February,  1815. 

SIR  :  In  conformity  with  the  intimation  contained  in  my  letter  of 
the  (1)  25th  of  December,  I  (2)  now  have  the  honour  to  state  to  you  the 
reasons  which  induced  me  to  differ  from  a  majority  of  my  col 
leagues  on  the  expedienc}'  of  offering  an  article  confirming  the 
British  right  to  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  and  the  right  of  the 
American  people  to  take  and  cure  fish  in  certain  places  within  the 
British  jurisdiction. 

The  (3)  prppnRififui  ^f  c»lch  an  articleappeared  to  be  inconsistent 
with  our  reasoning  to  prove  its  absoIuTe"lnutIIitY.  According  to 
thiajreasomng,  no  new  stipulation  was  any  more  necessary  ^on  the 
^ubiecToT  such  an  article,  than  anew  slipUlTTttoTrfoFTlie  recognition 
of  the  sovereignty  and  independence  oitne  Umied  States. 

The  article  proposed  appeared  also  to  be  inconsistent  with  onr 
instructions,  as  (4)  interpreted  by  us,  which  forbid  us  to  suffer  (5j  our 
tight  to  the  fisheries  to  be  brought  into  discussion  ;  for,  it  could  not  be 
believed  that  we  were  left  free  to  (6)  stipulate  on  a  subject  which 
we  were  restrained  from  (7)  discussing,  and  that  an  (&)  argument, 
and  not  an  (9)  agreement,  was  to  be^avoided.  If  our  construction 
was  indeed  correct,  it  might  not,  perhaps,  be  difficult  to  show  that 
we  have  not,  in  fact,  completely  refrained  from  the  interdicted  dis 
cussion. 

At  any  rate,  the  proposal  of  the  article  in  question  was  objection 
able,  inasmuch  as  it  was  incompatible  with  the  principles  asserted 
by  a  majority  of  the  mission,  and  with  the  construction  which 
(10)  this  majority  had  adopted  on  that  part  of  our  instructions  which 
related  to  the  fisheries.  If  the  majority  were  correct  in  these 
principles,  and  in  this  construction,  it  became  us  to  act  accordingly  ; 
if  they  were  (11)  not  correct,  still  it  was  unnecessary  to  add  inconsist 
ency  to  error. 

I  freely  confess,  however,  that  I  did  not  accord  with  the  majori 
ty,  pithpr  in  thpir  VJPW  nfihp  treaty  of  1783.  whence  they  derived 
their  prin^ii^psT-Qf~o£^uiLJu^trjictions  ;  jmd  that  my  great  objection 
to  proposing  the  article  did  not  arise  from  an  anxiety  to  reconcile 
our  conduct  with  our  reasoning  and  declaration?. 


*     [DUPLICATE.] 

Paris,  llih  February,  1822.t 

SIR  :  In  conformity  with  the  intimation  contained  in  my  letter  of 
(he  (1)  25th  December,  I  (2)  have  now  the  honour  to  state  to  you  the 
reasons  which  induced  me  to  differ  from  a  majority  of  my  col 
leagues  on  the  expediency  of  offering  an  article  confirming  the 
British  right  to  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  and  the  right  of 
the  American  people  to  take  and  cure  fish  in  certain  places  withia 
the  British  jurisdiction. 

The  (3)  proposal  of  such  an  article  appeared  to  be  inconsistent 
with  our  reasoning  to  prove  its  absolute  inutility. 

According  to  this  reasoning,  no  new  stipulation  was  any  more 
necessary,  on  the  subject  of  such  an  article,  than  a  new  stipulation 
for  the  recognition  of  the  sovereignty  and  independence  of  the 
United  States. 

The  article  proposed  appeared,  also,  to  be  inconsistent  with  our 
instructions,  as  (4)  interpreted  by  w,  which  forbid  us  to  suffer  (5)  our 
right  to  thejisheries,  to  be  brought  into  discussion  ;  for,  it  could  not 
be  believed  that  we  were  left  free  to  (6)  stipulate  on  a  subject 
which  we  were  restrained  from  (?)  discussing,  and  that  an  (8)  argu 
ment^  and  not  an  (9)  agreement,  was  to  be  avoided.  If  our  con 
struction  was,  indeed,  correct,  it  might  not,  perhaps,  be  difficult  to 
show  that  we  have  not,  in  fact,  completely  refrained  from  the  in 
terdicted  discussion. 

At  any  rate,  the  proposal  of  the  article  in  question  was  objec 
tionable,  inasmuch  as  it  was  incompatible  with  the  principles  as 
serted  by  a  majority  of  the  mission,  and  with  the  construction  which 
(10)  that  majority  had  adopted  on  that  part  of  our  instructions 
which  related  to  the  fisheries.  If  the  majority  were  correct  in 
these  principles,  and  in  this  construction,  it  became  us  to  act  ac 
cordingly.  If  they  were  (H)  incorrect,  gtill  it  was  unnecessary  to 
add  inconsistency  to  error. 

I  freely  confess,  however,  that  I  did  not  aecord  with  the  majori 
ty,  either  in  their  views  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  whence  they  derived 
their  principles,  nor  of  our  instructions  ;  and  that  my  great  objec 
tion  to  proposing  the  article  did  not  arise  from  an  anxiety  to  re 
concile  our  conduct  with  our  reasoning  and  declarations. 

'*  The  word  (Copy)  had  here  been  written  by  Mr.  Russell,  and  erased.  The 
traces  of  it  are  visible  on  the  paper. 

t  JVb/e  on  the  date  of  the  Duplicate.  This  was  the  date  of  the  paper  as  deli 
vered  by  Mv.  Russell  on  the  22d  of  April,  1822,  at  the  Department  of  State.  It 
was  afterwards  altered  to  1815,  with  his  approbation,  and  before  it  was  com 
municated  to  the  House,  as  will  be  sern  in  the  sequel. 


66  [PRIVATE.] 

I  could  not  believe  that  the  independence  of  the  United  States 
was  derived  from  the  treaty  of  1783  5  that  the  recognition  of  that 
independence,  by  Great  Britain,  gave  to  this  treaty  any  peculiar 
character,  or  that  such  character,  supposing  it  existed,  would  ne 
cessarily  render  this  treaty  absolutely  inseparable  in  its  provisions, 
and  make  it  one  entire  and  indivisible  whole,  equally  imperishable 
in  all  its  parts,  by  any  change  which  might  occur  in  the  relations 
between  the  contracting  parties. 

The  independence  of  the  United  States  rests  upon  those  funda 
mental  principles  set  forth  and  acted  on  by  the  American  Congress, 
in  the  declaration  of  July,  1776,  and  not  on  any  British  (12)  grant 
in  the  treaty  of  1783,  and  its  era  is  dated  accordingly. 

The  treaty  of  1783  was  merely  a~(13)  treaty  of  peace?  and  there 
fore  subject  to  the  same  rules  of  construction  as  all  other  compacts 
of  this  nature.  The  recognition  of  the  independence  of  the  United 
States  could  not  (14)  well  have  given  to  it  a  peculiar  character,  and 
excepted  it  from  the  operation  of  these  rules.  Such  a  recognition, 
expressed  or  implied,  is  always  indispensable  on  the  part  of  every 
nation  with  whom  we  form  any  treaty  (15)  whatsoever.  France,  in 
the  treaty  of  alliance,  long  before  the  year  1T83,  not  only  expressly 
recognised,  but  engaged  (1C)  effectually  to  maintain,  this  independ 
ence  ;  and  yet  this  treaty,  so  far  from  being  considered  as  possess 
ing  any  mysterious  peculiarity,  by  which  its  existence  was  perpe 
tuated,  has,  even  without  war,  and  although  a  part  of  it  contained 
words  of  (17)  perpetuity,  and  was  (18;  unexecuted,  long  (19)  since  en 
tirely  terminated. 

Had  the  recognition  of  our  independence  by  Great  Britain  given 
to  the  treaty  of  1783  any  peculiar  character,  which  it  did  not,  (20) 
still  that  character  could  have  properly  extended  to  those  provi 
sions  only  (21)  which  affected  that  independence.  All  those  general 
rights,  tor  instance,  of  jurisdiction,  which  appertained  to  the  Unit 
ed  States,  in  their  quality  as  a  nation,  might,  so  far  as  that  treaty 
was  declaratory  of  them,  have  been  embraced  by  (22)  such  pecu 
liarity,  without  (23)  necessarily  extending  its  influence  to  mere 
(24)  special  commercial  liberties  and  (25)  privileges,  or  to  provisions 
(26)  long  since  executed,  not  indispensably  connected  with  national 
sovereignty,  (27)  or  necessarily  resulting  from  it 

The  liberty  to  take  and  cure  fish,  within  the  exclusive  (28)  juris 
diction  of  (29)  Great  Britain,  was  certainly  not  necessary  to  perfect 
the  (30)  jurisdiction  of  the  (31)  United  States;  and  there  is  no  reason 
to  believe  that  such  a  liberty  was  intended  to  be  raised  to  an  equa 
lity  with  the  general  right  of  fishing  within  the  common  jurisdic 
tion  of  all  nations,  which  accrued  to  us  as  a  member  of  the  great 
national  family.  On  the  contrary,  the  distinction  between  the  spe 
cial  liberty  and  the  general  right  appears  to  have  been  well  under 
stood  by  the  American  ministers  who  negotiated  the  treaty  of  1783, 
and  to  have  been  clearly  marked  by  the  very  import  of  the  terms 
which  they  employed.  It  would  evidently  have  been  unwise  in 
them,  however  ingenious  it  may  be  in  us,  to  exalt  such  a  privilege 


[DUPLICATE.]  67 

I  could  not  believe  that  the  independence  of  the  United  States 
was  derived  from  the  treaty  of  1783  ;  that  the  recognition  of  that 
independence,  by  Great  Britain,  gave  to  this  treaty  any  peculiar 
character,  or  that  such  character,  supposing  it  existed,  would  ne 
cessarily  render  this  treaty  absolutely  inseparable  in  its  provisions, 
and  make  it  one  entire  and  indivisible  whole,  equally  imperishable 
in  all  its  parts,  by  any  change  which  might  occur  in  the  relations 
between  the  contracting  parties. 

The  independence  of  the  United  States  rests  upon  those  funda 
mental  principles  set  forth  and  acted  on  by  the  American  Congress, 
in  the  declaration  of  July,  1776,  and  not  on  any  British  (12)  grant 
in  the  treaty  of  1783  ;  and  its  a?ra  is  dated  accordingly. 

The  treaty  of  1783  was  merely  a  (13)  treaty  of  peace,  and  there- 
Tore  subject  to  the  same  rules  of  construction  as  all  other  compacts 
ot  this  nature.  The  recognition  of  the  independence  of  the  United 
States  could  not  (14)  have  well  given  to  it  a  peculiar  character,  and 
p.xcepted  it  from  the  operation  of  these  rules.  Such  a  recognition, 
expressed  or  implied,  is  always  indispensable  on  the  part  of  every 
nation  with  whom  we  form  any  treaty  (15)  whatever.  France,  in 
the  treaty  of  alliance,  long  before  the  year  1783,  not  only  express 
ly  recognised,  but  engaged  (IS)  effectually  to  maintain  this  indepen 
dence;  and  yet  this  treaty,  so  far  from  being  considered  as  possess 
ing  any  mysterious  peculiarity  by  which  its  existence  was  perpe 
tuated,  has,  even  without  war,  and  although  a  part  of  it  contained 
words  of  (H)  perpetuity  and  was  (18)  unexecuted  long  (19)  since  termi- 
ziated. 

Had  the  recognition  of  our  independence  by  Great  Britain  given 
to  the  treaty  of  1783  any  peculiar  character,  which  it  did  not, 
(2o)  yet  that  character  could  have  properly  extended  to  those  pro 
visions  only  (21)  which  affected  that  independence.  All  those  gene 
ral  rights,  for  instance,  of  jurisdiction,  which  appertained  to  the 
United  States  in  their  quality  as  a  nation,  might,  so  far  as  that  treaty 
was  declaratory  of  them,  have  been  embraced  by  (22)  that  peculi 
arity  without  (23)  necessarily  extending  its  influence  to  mere  (24) 
special  liberties  and  (23)  privileges,  or  to  provisions  (26)  long  since  er- 
ecuted,)  not  indispensably  connected  with  national  sovereignty, 
(2?)  nor  necessarily  resulting  from  it. 

The  liberty  to  take  and  cure  fish  within  the  exclusive  (28)y«m- 
diclion  of  (29)  Great  Britain,  was  certainly  not  necessary  to  perfect 
the  (30)  jurisdiction  of  the  (3l)  United  States.  And  there  is  no  reason 
to^  believe  that  such  a  liberty  was  intended  to  be  raised  to  an  equa 
lity  with  the  general  right  of  fishing  within  the  common  jurisdiction 
of  all  nations,  which  accrued  to  us  as  a  member  of  the  great  na 
tional  family.  On  the  contrary,  the  distinction  between  the  special 
liberty  and  the  general  right,  appears  to  have  been  well  under 
stood  by  the  American  ministers  who  negotiated  the  treaty  of  1783, 
and  to  have  been  clearly  marked  by  the  very  import  of  the  terms 
which  they  employed.  It  would  evidently  have  been  unwise  iu 
them,  however  ingenious  it  may  be  in.  us.  to  exalt  such  a  privilege 


68  [PRIVATE.] 

to  the  rank  of  a  sovereign  right,  and  thereby  to  have  assumed  the 
unnecessary  and  inconvenient  obligation  of  considering  such  a  liber 
ty  to  be  an  indispensable  condition  of  our  national  existence,  and 
thus  rendering  that  existence  as  precarious  as  the  liberty  itself. 
They  could  not  have  considered  a  privilege,  which  they  expressly 
made  to  depend,  to  a  very  considerable  extent,  for  its  continuance, 
(32)  on  events  and  private  interests,  as  partaking  of  the  character 
and  entitled  to  the  duration  of  the  inherent  properties  of  sove 
reignty.  The  settlement  of  the  shores  might,  at  any  time,  have 
been  effected  by  the  policy  of  the  British  government,  and  would 
have  made  the  assent  of  British  subjects,  under  the  influence  of 
that  policy,  necessary  to  the  continuance  of  a  very  considerable 
portion  of  that  (33)  liberty.  They  could  not  have  meant  thus  to 
place,  within  the  control  of  a  foreign  (34)  government  and  its  sub 
jects,  an  (35)  integral  part,  as  we  now  affect  to  consider  this  privi 
lege,  of  our  national  rights. 

It  is  from  this  view  of  the  subject  that  I  have  been  constrained 
to  believe  that  there  was  nothing  in  the  treaty  of  1783,  which 
could,  essentially,  distinguish  it  from  ordinary  treaties,  or  rescue  it, 
on  account  of  any  peculiarity  of  character,  from  the  jura  belli,  or 
from  the  operation  of  those  events  on  which  the  (36)  continuation 
or  termination  of  such  treaties  depends.  I  was,  in  like  manner, 
compelled  to  believe,  if  any  such  peculiarity  belonged  to  those 
provisions,  in  that  treaty,  which  had  an  immediate  connexion  with 
our  independence,  that  it  did  not  necessarily  affect  the  nature  of 
the  whole  treaty,  (37)  or  attach  to  a  privilege  which  had  no  analo 
gy  to  such  provisions,  or  any  relation  to  that  independence. 

I  know  not,  indeed,  any  treaty,  or  any  article  of  a  treaty,  what 
ever  may  have  been  the  subject  to  which  it  related,  or  the  terms  in 
which  it  was  expressed,  that  has  survived  a  war  between  the  par 
ties,  without  being  specially  renewed,  by  reference  or  recital>  in 
the  succeeding  treaty  of  peace.  I  cannot,  indeed,  (38)  conceive  of  the 
possibility  of  such  a  treaty  or  such  an  article  ;  for,  however  clear 
and  strong  the  stipulations  for  perpetuity  might  be,  these  stipula 
tions  themselves  would  follow  the  fate  of  ordinary  unexecuted  en 
gagements,  and  require,  after  a  war,  the  declared  assent  of  the  par 
ties  for  their  revival. 

We  appear,  in  fact,  not  to  have  had  an  unqualified  confidence  in 
our  construction  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  or  to  have  been  willing  to 
rest  exclusively  on  its  peculiar  character  our  title  to  any  of  the 
rights  mentioned  in  it,  and  much  less  our  title  to  the  fishing  (39)liberty 
in  question.  If  hostilities  could  not  affect  that  treaty,  (40)  or  abro 
gate  its  provisions,  why  did  we  permit  the  boundaries  assigned  by 
it  to  be  brought  into  discussion,  or  stipulate  for  a  (41)  restitution  of  all 
places  taken  from  us  during  the  present  war  ?  If  such  (42)  restitution 
was  secured  by  the  mere  operation  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  why  did 
we  discover  any  solicitude  for  the  status  ante  helium,  and  not  resist 
the  principle  of  uti  possidetis  on  that  ground  ? 


[DUPLICATE.]  69 

to  the  rank  of  a  sovereign  right,  and  thereby  to  have  assumed  the 
unnecessary  and  inconvenient  obligation  of  considering  such  a  lib 
erty  to  be  an  indispensable  condition  of  our  national  existence,  and 
thus  rendering  that  existence  as  precarious  as  the  liberty  itself. 
They  could  not  have  considered  a  privilege  which  they  ex 
pressly  made  to  depend,  to  a  very  considerable  extent,  for  its  con 
tinuance,  (32)  on  mere  events  and  private  interests,  as  partaking  of 
the  character,  and  entitled  to  the  duration,  of  the  inherent  proper 
ties  of  sovereignty.  The  settlement  of  the  shores  might,  at  any 
time,  have  been  effected  by  the  policy  of  the  British  government, 
and  would  have  made  the  assent  of  British  subjects  under  the  influ 
ence  of  that  policy,  necessary  to  the  continuance  of  a  very  consi 
derable  portion  of  that  (33)  privilege.  They  could  not  have  meant 
thus  to  place  within  the  control  of  a  foreign  (34)  power  and  its 
subjects,  an  (3S)  integral  part,  as  we  now  affect  to  consider  this  pri 
vilege,  of  our  national  rights. 

It  is  from  this  view  of  the  subject  that  I  have  been  constrained 
to  believe  that  there  was  nothing  in  the  treaty  of  1733,  which  could 
essentially  distinguish  it  from  ordinary  treaties,  or  rescue  it,  on 
account  of  any  peculiarity  of  character,  from  the  jura  belli,  or  from 
the  operation  of  those  events  on  which  the  (36)  continuance  or  ter 
mination  of  such  treaties  depends. 

I  was,  in  like  manner,  compelled  to  believe,  if  any  such  peculi 
arity  belonged  to  those  provisions  in  that  treaty,  which  had  an  im 
mediate  connection  with  our  independence,  that  it  did  not  necessa 
rily  affect  the  nature  of  the  whole  treaty,  (37)  nor  attach  to  a  privi 
lege  which  had  no  analogy  to  such  provisions,  nor  any  relation  to 
that  independence. 

1  know  not,  indeed,  any  treaty,  nor  any  article  of  a  treaty,  what 
ever  m;\y  have  been  the  subject  to  which  it  related,  or  the  terms 
in  which  it  was  expressed,  that  has  survived  a  war  between  the 
parties,  without  being  specially  renewed,  by  reference  or  recital, 
in  the  succeeding  treaty  of  peace.  I  cannot,  indeed,  (3&)  conceive  the 
possibility  of  such  a  treaty,  or  of  such  an  article  ;  for,  however 
clear  and  strong  the  stipulations  for  perpetuity  might  be,  these 
stipulations  themselves  would  follow  the  fate  of  ordinary  unexecut 
ed  engagements,  and  require,  after  a  war,  the  declared  assent  of 
the  parties  for  their  revival. 

We  appear,  in  fact,  not  to  have  an  unqualified  confidence  in  our 
construction  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  or  to  have  been  willing  to  rest 
exclusively  on  its  peculiar  character  our  title  to  any  of  the  rights 
mentioned  in  it ;  and  much  less  our  title  to  the  fishing  (39)  privilege 
in  question. 

If  hostilities  could  not  affect  that  treaty,  (40)  nor  abrogate  its  pro 
visions,  why  did  we  permit  the  boundaries  assigned  by  it,  to  be 
brought  into  discussion,  or  stipulate  for  a  (41)  restoration  of  all  places 
taken  from  us  during  the  present  war  ?  If  such  (42)  a  restitution  was 
secured  by  the  mere  operation  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  why  did  we 
discover  any  solicitude  for  the  status  ante  bdlvm,  and  not  resist  t'he 
principle  of  vti  possidetis  on  that  ground. 


70  [PRIVATE."]" 

With  regard  to  the  fishing  privilege,  we  distinctly  stated  to  you, 
in  our  letter  of  the  (43)  2 1st  of  December,  that,  (44)  "at  the  time  of 
the  treaty  of  1783,  it  was  (45)  no  new  grant,  we  having  always  before 
that  time  enjoyed  it,"  and  thus  endeavoured  to  derive  our  title  to 
it  from  (46)  prescription.  A  title,  derived  from  immemorial  usage, 
antecedent  to  1783,  could  not  well  owe  its  origin  or  its  validity 
(47)  to  a  compact  concluded  at  that  time,  and  we  (48)  could,  therefore, 
in  this  view  of  the  subject,  correctly  say  that  this  privilege  (49)Was  no 
new  grant ;  that  is,  that  our  right  to  the  exercise  of  it  was  totally 
independent  of  such  compact.  If  we  were  well-founded,  however, 
in  the  assertion  of  our  prescriptive  title,  it  was  quite  (50)  unneces-^ 
sary  to  attempt  to  give  a  kind  of  charmed  existence  to  the  treaty  oi 
1783,  and  to  extend  its  (51)  undefinable  influence  to  every  article  of 
which  it  was  composed,  merely  to  preserve  that  title,  which  we 
declared  to  be  in  no  way  derived  from  it,  and  which  had  existed, 
and,  of  course,  could  exist,  without  it. 

It  was  rather  unfortunate,  too,  for  our  argument  against  a  seve 
rance  of  the  provisions  of  that  treaty,  that  we  should  have  disco 
vered,  ourselves,  (52)  a  radical  difference  between  them,  making  the 
fishing  (5s)  privilege  depend  on  immemorial  usage,  and,  of  course,  dis 
tinct  in  its  nature  (54)  and  origin  from  the  rights  resulting  from  our 
independence. 

We,  indeed,  throw  some  obscurity  over  this  subject  when  we  de 
clare  to  you  that  this  privilege  was  always  enjoyed  by  us  before  the 
treaty  of  1783,  thence  inferring  that  it  was  not  granted  by  that  trea 
ty,  and  in  the  same  sentence  and  from  the  same  fact,  appear  also  to 
infer,  that  it  was  not  to  be  forfeited  by  war  any  more  than  (55)  any 
other  of  the  rights  of  our  independence,  making  it  thus  one  of  (56)  these 
rights,  and  of  course,  according  to  our  doctrine,  dependant  on  that 
treaty. 

There  might  have  been  nothing  incomprehensible  in  this  mode 
of  reasoning,  had  the  treaty  recognised  this  privilege  to  be  derived 
from  prescription,  and  confirmed  it  on  that  ground.  The  treaty 
has,  however,  not  the  slightest  allusion  to  the  past,  in  reference  to 
this  privilege,  but  regards  it  only  with  a  view  to  the  future.  The 
treaty,  (57)  therefore,  cannot  be  construed  as  supporting  a  pre-exist 
ing  title,  but  as  containing  a  grant  entirely  new.  If  we  claim,  there 
fore,  under  the  treaty,  we  must  renounce  prescription,  and  if  we 
claim  from  prescription,  we  can  derive  no  aid  from  the  treaty.  If 
tlie  treaty  be  imperishable  in  all  its  parts,  the  fishing  privilege  re 
mains  unimpaired  without  a  recurrence  to  immemorial  usage  ;  and 
if  our  title  to  it  be  well-founded  on  immemorial  usage,  the  treaty 
may  perish  without  affecting  it.  To  have  endeavoured  to  support 
it  on  both  grounds,  implies  that  we  had  not  entire  confidence  in 
either,  and  to  have  proposed  a  new  article,  indicates  a  distrust  oi* 
both. 

It  is  not,  as  I  conceive,  difficult  to  show  that  we  (58)  cannot,  in 
deed,  derive  (59)  a  better  title  to  this  fishing  privilege,  from  pre 
scription,  than  from  any  indestructible  quality  of  the  treaty  of  1783 


{DUPLICATE.}  71 

Wiih  regard  to  the  fishing  privilege,  we  distinctly  stated  to  you, 
in  our  letter  of  the  (43)  25th  of  December  last,  that  (44)  at  the  time  of 
the  treaty  of  1783,  it  was  (45)  nonew grant,  we  having  always  before 
that  time  enjoyed  it,  and  thus  endeavoured  to  derive  our  title  to  it 
from  (46)  prescription ;  a  title  derived  from  immemorial  usage,  ante 
cedent  to  1783,  could  not  well  owe  its  origin,  or  its  validity,  (47)  to 
any  compact,  concluded  at  that  time  ;  and  we  (4*8)  might,  therefore, 
in  this  view  of  the  subject,  correctly  say  that  this  privilege  (49)  was 
then  no  new  grant ;  that  is,  that  our  right  to  the  exercise  of  it  was 
totally  independent  of  such  compact.  If  we  were  well  founded, 
however,  in  the  assertion  of  our  prescriptive  title,  it  was  quite 
(50)  unnecessary  for  us  to  attempt  to  give  a  kind  of  charmed  existence 
to  the  treaty  of  1783,  and  to  extend  its  (51)  indefinable  influence  to 
every  article  of  which  it  was  composed,  merely  to  preserve  that 
title  which  we  declared  to  be  in  no  way  derived  from  it,  and  which 
had  existed,  and,  of  course,  could  exist  without  it. 

It  was  rather  unfortunate,  too,  for  our  argument  against  the  se 
verance  of  the  provisions?  of  that  treaty,  that  we  should  have  dis 
covered,  ourselves,  (52)  such  a  radical  difference  between  them, 
making  the  fishing  (53)  privilege  to  depend  on  the  immemorial  usage, 
and,  of  course,  distinct,  in  its  nature  (54)  and  in  its  origin,  from  the 
rights  resulting  from  our  independence. 

We  indeed  throw  some  obscurity  over  this  subject,  when  we  de 
clare  to  you  that  this  privilege  was  always  enjoyed  by  us  before 
the  treaty  of  1783  ;  thence  inferring  that  it  was  not  granted  by  that 
treaty,  and,  in  the  same  sentence,  and  from  the  same  fact,  appear 
also  to  infer  that  it  was  not  to  be  forfeited  by  war,  any  more  than 
(55)  any  other  of  the  rights  of  independence;  making  it  thus  one  of  (56) 
those  rights,  and,  of  course,  according  to  our  doctrine,  dependant  on 
that  treaty.  There  might  have  been  nothing  incomprehensible  in 
this  mode  of  reasoning,  had  the  treaty  recognised  this  privilege  to 
be  derived  from  prescription,  and  confirmed  it  on  that  ground. 
The  treaty,  however,  has  not  the  slightest  allusion  to  the  past,  in 
reference  to  this  privilege,  but  regards  it  only  with  a  view  to  the 
future.  The  treaty  (57)  cannot,  therefore,  be  construed  as  support 
ing  a  pre-existing  title,  but  as  containing  a  grant  entirely  new.  If 
we  claim,  therefore,  under  the  treaty,  we  must  renounce  prescrip 
tion  ;  and  if  we  claim  from  prescription,  we  can  derive  no  aid  from 
the  treaty.  If  the  treaty  be  imperishable  in  all  its  parts,  the  fish 
ing  privilege  remains  unimpaired,  without  a  recurrence  to  imme 
morial  usage  ;  and  if  our  title  to  it  be  well  founded  on  immemorial 
usage,  the  treaty  may  perish  without  affecting  it.  To  have  endea 
voured  to  support  it  on  both  grounds,  implies  that  we  had  not  entire 
confidence  in  either,  and  to  have  proposed  a  new  article  indicates 
a  distrust  of  both. 

It  is  not,  as  I  conceive,  difficult  to  show  that  we  (58)  can,  indeed, 
derive  (59)  no  better  title  to  this  fishing  privilege  from  prescription 
than  from  any  indestructible  quality  of  the  treaty  of  1783. 


72  [PRIVATE.  J 

Prescription  (60)  appears  to  me  to  be  inapplicable  to  the  (61)  parties 
and  to  the  (62)  subject,  and  to  be  defective  both  in  (63)  fact  and  effect- 
As  to  the  parties  : — the  immemorial  enjoyment  of  a  privilege 
within  British  jurisdiction,  by  British  subjects,  the  inhabitants  of 
British  colonies,  could  not  well  be  considered  as  evidence  of  a  title 
to  that  privilege  claimed  (64)  by  the  citizens  of  an  independent  repub 
lic,  residing  within  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  that  republic.  The 
people  of  the  United  States,  as  such,  could  have  claimed  no  special 
privilege  within  the  dominions  of  any  foreign  power  from  immemo 
rial  usage,  in  1783,  when  the  longest  duration  of  their  own  existence 
in  that  quality  was  little  more,  at  the  utmost,  than  the  brief  period 
of  seven  years,  which  is  surely  not  beyond  the  memory  of  man, 
(ultra  memoriam  hominis.)  The  people  of  the  United  States  had 
never,  in  fact,  during  that  period,  enjoyed  the  fishing  privilege  a 
moment ;  being  effectually  prevented  therefrom  by  the  existing 
state  of  hostilities.  Nor  could  the  inhabitants  of  the  colonies,  ori 
ginally  constituting  the  United  States,  even  in  their  colonial  condi 
tion,  acquire  against  their  sovereign  any  right  from  long  usage 
(65)  or  mere  lapse  of  time,  (66)  (nullum  tempus  regi  occuvrit.)  The  Bri 
tish  sovereign  was  always  competent  to  regulate  (67)  and  restrain  his 
colonies  in  their  commerce  and  intercourse  with  each  other,  when 
ever  and  however  he  might  think  proner,  and  had  he  forbid  his 
Subjects  in  the  province  of  (68)  Massachusetts,  to  fish  (C9)  and  dry  and 
cure  fish  in  the  bays,  harbours,  and  creeks  of  Labrador,  which,  by 
the  way,  had  (70)  not  immcmorially  belonged  to  him,  it  is  not  to  be  ima 
gined  that  they  would  have  conceived  themselves  discharged  from 
the  obligation  of  submitting,  on  account  of  any  pretended  right  from 
immemorial  usage.  The  fishing  privilege,  therefore,  enjoyed  by 
British  subjects  within  British  jurisdiction,  could  give  no  perma 
nent  and  independent  right  to  those  subjects  themselves  and, 
(71)  a  fortiori,  no  such  right  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
claiming  under  a  (72)  different  estate  and  in  a  different  capacity. 
Great  Britain  might,  indeed,  as  well  prescribe  for  the  prerogatives 
of  her  sovereignty  over  us,  as  we  for  any  of  the  privileges  which 
we  enjoyed  as  her  subjects. 

I  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  inquire  how  far  the  practice  of  the 
people  of  iAlassachusetts  was  the  practice  of  (73)  the  whole  original 
thirteen  United  States,  or  of  the  United  States  now,  including  Lou 
isiana  ;  or  how  far  the  immemorial  usage  of  the  people  of  Boston 
can  establish  a  prescriptive  right  in  the  people  of  New-Orleans. 
1  trust  1  have  said  enough  to  show  that  prescription  is  (74)  inapplica 
ble  to  the  parties.  It  is  also,  I  conceive,  inapplicable  to  the  subject. 

Had  the  United  States,  as  an  independent  nation,  enjoyed,  from 
time  immemorial,  the  fishing  privilege  in  question,  still,  from  the 
nature  of  this  privilege,  no  prescriptive  right  (75)  could  have  thence 
been  established.  A  right  to  fish,  or  to  trade,  or  to  do  (76)  any  other 
actor  thing  within  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  a  foreign  state,  is  a 
(77)  simple  power,  a  right  (78)  of  mere  ability,  (jus  merce  facultatis,)  de- 


(DUPLICATE.]  73 

Prescription  (60)  appears  to  be  inapplicable  to  the  (61)  parties,  and 
to  the  (62)  subject,  and  to  be  defective  both  in  (63)  fact  and  effect. 

As  to  the  parties  : — the  immemorial  enjoyment  of  a  privilege, 
within  British  jurisdiction,  by  British  subjects,  the  inhabitants  of 
British  colonies,  could  not  well  be  considered  as  evidence  of  a  title 
to  that  privilege,  (64)  claimed  by  citizens  of  an  independent  repub 
lic,  residing  within  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  that  republic.  The 
people  of  the  United  States,  as  such,  could  have  claimed  no  special 
privilege  within  the  dominions  of  any  foreign  power,  from  imme 
morial  usage,  in  1783,  when  the  longest  duration  of  their  own  ex 
istence  in  that  quality  was  little  more,  at  the  utmost,  than  the  brief 
period  of  seven  years,  which  is  surely  not  beyond  the  memory  of 
man,  (ultra  memonam  hominis.)  The  people  of  the  United  States 
had  never,  in  fact,  during  that  period,  enjoyed  the  fishing  privilege 
a  moment,  being  effectually  prevented  therefrom  by  the  existing 
state  of  hostilities.  Nor  could  the  inhabitants  of  the  colonies,  origin- 
ally  constituting  the  United  States,  even  in  their  colonial  condition, 
acquire  against  their  sovereign  any  right  from  long  usage,  (65)  or  th» 
mere  lapse  of  time,  (66)  (nullum  tempusregi  occurrit.)  The  British  SO- 
vereign  was  always  competent  to  regulate  (67)  or  to  restrain  them  in 
their  commerce  and  intercourse  with  each  other,  whenever  and 
however  he  might  think  proper.  And  had  he  forbid  his  subjects, 
in  the  province  of  (68)  Massachusetts  Bay,  to  fish,  (69)  and  to  dry  and 
cure  fish,  in  the  bays,  harbours,  and  creeks,  of  Labrador,  which, 
by  the  way,  had  (70)  not  immemorially  belonged  to  him,  it  is  not  to  be 
imagined  that  they  would  have  conceived  themselves  discharged 
from  the  obligation  of  submitting,  on  account  of  any  pretended  right 
from  immemorial  usage. 

The  fishing  privilege,  therefore,  enjoyed  by  British  subjects, 
within  British  jurisdiction,  could  give  no  permanent  and  independ 
ent  right  to  those  subjects  themselves,  and,  (7l;  afortiori,  no  such 
right  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  claiming,  under  a  i72)rf«y~ 
ferent  estate,  and  in  a  different  capacity.  Great  Britain  might,  indeed, 
as  well  prescribe  for  the  prerogatives  of  her  sovereignty  over  us, 
as  we  for  any  of  the  privileges  which  we  enjoyed  as  her  subjects. 

I  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  inquire  how  far  the  practice  of  the 
people  of  Massachusetts  was  the  practice  of  (73)  the  people  of  the 
whole  original  thirteen  United  States,  or  of  the  United  States  now, 
including  Louisiana  ;  or  how  far  the  immemorial  usage  of  the  people 
of  Boston  can  establish  a  prescriptive  right  in  the  people  of  New- 
Orleans.  I  trust  1  have  said  enough  to  show  that  prescription  is 
(74)  inapplicable  to  the  parties. 

It  is,  also,  I  conceive,  inapplicable  to  the  subject.  Had  the 
United  States,  as  an  independent  nation,  enjoyed,  from  time  imme 
morial,  the  fishing  privilege  in  question,  still,  from  the  nature  of 
this  privilege,  no  prescriptive  right  (75)  would  have  thence  been 
established.  A  right  to  fish,  or  to  trade,  or  to  do  (76)  any  other 
thing,  within  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  a  foreign  state,  is  a  (77) 
parrcr,  a  right  (?8;  of  mere  ability,  jus  merse  facultatis,  depend- 


74  [PRIVATE^ 

pending  on  the  will  Of  such  State,  (?9)  and  is  consequently  imprescripti- 
pie.    Aa  independent  (80*)  title  can  be  derived  only  from  treaty. 

I  conceive,  therefore,  that  (80)  our  claim  to  the  fishing  privilege, 
.from  immemorial  usage,  is  not  only  unsupported  by  the  (81)  fact, 
but  cannot,  in  (82)  effect,  result  from  such  usage. 

I  have,  (83)  from  this  view  of  the  subject,  been  led  to  conclude, 
that  the  treaty  of  1783,  in  relation  to  the  fishing  liberty,  is  abrogat 
ed  by  the  war  ;  that  this  liberty  is  totally  destitute  of  support  from 
prescription  ;  (84)  and  that  we  are,  consequently,  left  without  any  title 
to  it  whatsoever.  For,  I  cannot  prevail  upon  myself  to  seek  for 
such  a  title  in  the  relative  situation  of  the  parties,  at  the  time  of  ne 
gotiating  the  treaty  of  1783,  and  contend,  according  to  the  insinua 
tion  contained!  in  our  letter  to  you  of  the  (85)  21st  of  December,  that 
the  jurisdiction  of  Great  Britain  over  the  colonies,  assigned  to  her 
in  America,  was  a  grant  (86)  from  the  United  States,  and  that  the 
United  States,  in  making  this  grant,  (87)  reserved  to  themselves  the 
privilege  in  question.  Such  a  pretension,  however  lofty,  is  so  in 
consistent  with  (88)  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  and  with  any  sober 
construction  which  can  be  given  to  that  treaty,  that  I  shall,  I  trust, 
be  excused  from  seriously  examining  its  validity. 

Having  thus  gtated  some  of  the  reasons  which  induced  me  to  differ 
in  opinion  from  a  majority  of  my  colleagues,  relative  to  the  cha 
racter  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  as  well  as  with  regard  to  every  other 
foundation  on  which  they  were  (89)  disposed  to  rest  our  title  to  the 
fishing  privilege,  I  shall  now  proceed  to  explain  the  (90)  causes 
which  influenced  me  to  dissent  from  them  in  the  interpretation  of 
«UT  (91)  instructions. 

These  instructions  forbid  us  to  permit  our  (92)  rights  to  the  trade 
beyond  the  (93)  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  to  the  fisheries,  and  to  Louisiana}  to 
be  brought  into  discussion.  I  conceived  that  this  prohibition  ex* 
tended  to  the  general  rights  only,  which  affected  our  sovereignty, 
and  resulted  from  it,  and  not  (94)  to  mere  special  liberties  and  privi 
leges  which  had  no  relation  to  that  sovereignty,  either  as  to  its  na 
ture  or  extent. 

The  right  (95)  relating  to  the  trade  beyond  the  Cape  of  Good 
Hope,  was  the  right  which  belonged  to  us  as  an  independent  (96)  na 
tion,  in  common  with  all  other  independent  nations,  and  not  the  permission  of 
trading  to  those  parts  of  the  East  Indies  which  were  within  the  ex 
clusive  jurisdiction  of  Great  Britain.  In  like  manner,  the  right  to 
the  fisheries,  contemplated  by  our  instructions,  was,  (97)  1  conceived, 
the  right,  common  to  all  nations,  to  use  the  open  sea  for  fishing  as  well 
as  for  navigation,  and  (98)  not  to  the  liberty  to  fish  (99)  and  cure  fish 
within  the  territorial  limits  of  any  foreign  state.  The  right  to 
Louisiana,  (100)  which  was  not  to  be  brought  into  discussion,  was  the 
right  to  the  empire  and  domain  of  that  region,  and  (101)  not  to  the 
right  of  excluding  Great  Britain  from  (102)  the  navigation  of  the  Mis 
sissippi. 

How  far  we  conformed  to  this  instruction,  with  regard  to  the  ge 
neral  right  to  Louisiana,  it  is  not  necessary  for  me  here  to  inquire  ; 


[DUPLICATED  75 

ing  on  the  will  of  such  state,  (79)  and  conseqcuUy  imprescriptible.     An 
independent  (80*)  right  can  be  derived  only  from  treaty. 

I  conceive,  therefore,  that  (8O)  a  claim"to  the  fishing  privilege, 
from  immemorial  usage,  is  not  only  unsupported  by  the  (81)  fact, 
but  cannot,  in  (S2)  effect,  result  from  ?uch  usage. 

I  have,  (K3)  in  this  view  of  the  subject,  been  led  to  conclude  that 
the  treaty  of  1783,  in  relation  to  the  fishing  liberty,  is  abrogated  by 
the  war,  and  that  this  liberty  is  totally  destitute  of  support  from 
prescription  (84)  and,  consequently,  that  we  are  left  without  any  title 
to  it  whatsoever.  F-or,  I  cannot  prevail  upon  myself  to  seek  for 
such  a  title  in  the  relative  situation  of  the  parties  at  the  time  of 
negotiating  the  treaty  of  1783,  and  contend,  according  to  the  insinua 
tion  contained  in  our  letter  to  you,  of  the  (85$  25th  of  December 
last,  that  the  jurisdiction  of  Great  Britain  over  the  colonies  assign 
ed  to  her,  in  America,  was  a  grant  (86)  of  the  United  States,  and 
that  the  United  States,  in  making  this  grant,  (87)  reserved  to  themselves 
the  privilege  in  question.  Such  a  pretension,  however  lofty,  is  so 
inconsistent  with  (88)  the  real  circumstances  of  the  case,  and  with  any 
sober  construction  which  can  be  given  to  that  treaty,  that  I  shal^ 
I  trust,  be  excused  from  seriously  examining  its  validity. 

Having  thus  stated  some  of  the  reasons  which  induced  me  to  dif 
fer  in  opinion  from  a  majority  of  my  colleagues,  relative  to  the 
character  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  as  well  as  with  regard  to  every 
other  foundation  on  which  they  were  (89)  disposed,  inconsistent1^,  to  rest 
our  title  to  the  fishing  privilege,  I  shall  now  proceed  to  explain  the 
(90)  reasons  which  influenced  me  to  dissent  from  them  in  the  inter 
pretation  of  our  (91)  instructions  relative  to  that  privilege. 

These  instructions  forbid  us  to  permit  our  (92)  rights  to  th« 
trade  beyond  the  (93)  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  to  the  fisheries,  and  to  Louisiana? 
to  be  brought  into  discussion.  I  conceived  that  this  prohibition  ex 
tended  to  the  general  rights  only,  which  affected  our  sovereignty 
and  resulted  from  it,  and  not  (94)  the  special  liberties  and  privileges 
which  had  no  relation  to  that  sovereignty,  either  as  to  its  nature  or 
extent. 

The  right,  (95)  relative  to  the  trade  beyond  the  Cape  of  Good 
Hope,  was  the  right  which  belonged  to  us  as  an  independent 
(96)  nation,  and  not  to  the  permission  of  trading  to  those  parts  of  the 
East  Indies  which  were  within  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  Great 
Britain.  In  like  manner,  the  right  to  the  fisheries,  contemplated 
t>y  our  instructions,  w&s,  (97)  I  conceive,  the  right  to  use  the  open  sea 
for  fishing  as  well  as  for  navigation,  and  (98)  not  the  liberty  to  figh, 
(99)  and  to  cure  fish,  within  the  territorial  limits  of  any  foreign  state. 
The  right  to  Louisiana,  (100)  which,  by  those  instructions,  were  not  to  be 
brought  into  discussion,  was  the  right  to  the  empire  and  domain  of 
that  region,  and  (lol)  not  the  right  of  excluding  Great  Britain  from 
(102)  the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi. 

How  far  we  conformed  to  this  instruction,  with  regard  to  the  ge 
neral  right  to  Louisiana,  it  is  not  necessary  for  roe  here  to  inquire ; 


76  [PRIVATE.] 

but  certainly  the  majority  believed  (103)  themselves  permitted  to  offer 
a  very  explicit  proposition  with  regard  to  the  navigation  of  its  prin 
cipal  (104)  river.  I  believed,  with  them,  that  we  were  so  permitted,  and  that 
we  were  likewise  permitted  to  offer  a  proposition  relative  to  the  fishing  liberty, 
and  had  the  occasion  required  it,  to  make  proposals  concerning  the  trade  to  the 
British  East  Indies.  I  was  persuaded,  that  treating  relative  to  these  privileges, 
or  discussing  the  obligation  or  expediency  of  granting  or  witholding  them,  re 
spectively,  violated  in  no  way  our  instructions,  or  affected  the  general  right? 
which  we  were  forbidden  to  bring  into  discussion. 


Considering,  theretore,  the  Ashing  liberty  to  be  entirely  at  an 
end,  without  a  new  stipulation  for  its  revival,  and  believing  that  we 
were  entirely  free  to  discuss  the  terms  and  conditions  of  such  a 
stipulation,  I  did  not  object  to  the  article  proposed  by  us  because 
any  article  on  the  subject  was  unnecessary,  or  contrary  to  our  in 
structions,  but  I  objected  specially  to  that  article,  because,  by  con 
ceding  (105)init  the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  (106)  we  offered, 
in  my  estimation,  for  the  fishing  privilege,  a  price  much  above  its  value. 

In  no  view  of  the  subject  could  I  discover  any  (107)  analogy  between 
the  two  objects,  and  the  only  reason  for  connecting  them  and  mak 
ing  them  mutual  equivalents  for  each  other,  appeared  to  be  because 
they  were  both  found  in  the  treaty  of  1783. 

If  that  treaty  was  abrogated  by  the  war,  as  I  consider  it  to  have 
been,  any  connexion  between  its  parts  must  have  ceased,  and  the 
liberty  of  navigating  the  Mississippi  by  British  subjects  must,  at 
least,  be  completely  at  an  end  ;  for  it  will  not,  I  trust,  be  attempted 
to  continue  it  by  a  (108;  prescriptive  title,  or  to  consider  it  as  a 
(109)  reservation,  made  by  the  United  States,  from  any  grant  of  sove 
reignty  which,  at  the  treaty  of  peace,  they  accorded  to  Great  Bri 
tain.  If,  indeed,  it  was  such  a  reservation,  it  must  have  been  in 
tended  for  (HO)  our  benefit,  and,  of  (111)  course,  could  be  no  equivalent 
for  the  fishing  (112)  privilege.  If  it  is  considered  as  a  reservation 
made  by  Great  Britain,  it  will  reverse  (113)  the  facts  assumed  by  us 
in  relation  to  that  privilege. 

The  (H4)  third  article  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  respecting  the  fish 
eries,  and  the  (115)  eighth  article  of  that  treaty,  respecting  the  Missis 
sippi,  had  not  the  slightest  reference  to  each  other,  and  were  placed 
as  remote,  the  one  from  the  other,  as  the  limits  of  that  treaty  could 
well  admit.  Whatever,  therefore,  (116)  was  the  cause  of  inserting 
the  fishing  liberty,  whether  it  was  a  voluntary  and  gratuitous  grant 
on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  or  extorted  from  her  as  a  condition 
on  which  the  peace  depended,  it  could  have  had  no  relation  (117)  to 
the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi.  Besides,  the  article  relative 


DUPLICATE.]  77 

but,  certainly,  the  majority  believed  0°3)  themselves  ta  be  permitted, 
their  own  construction  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding,  to  offer  a  Very  expli 
cit  proposition,  with  regard  to  the  navigation  of  its  principal 

(104)  river  ;  now,  this  offer  I  considered,  for  the  reasons  just  suggested,  not  to 
he  a  violation  of  the  instructions  in  question,  but  I  considered  it  to  be  against 
both  the  letter  and  the  spirit  of  our  instructions  of  the  l5th  of  April,  1813.  By 
these  instructions  we  were  explicitly  and  implicitly  directed  "to  avoid  any 
stipulation  which  might  restrain  the  United  States  from  excluding  the  British 
traders  from  the  navigation  of  the  lakes  and  rivers,  exclusively  within  our  own 
jurisdiction."  This  instruction  applied  with  the  greater  force  to  the  Mississippi, 
because,  as  it  is  believed,  it  was  the  only  river  to  which  it  could  apply. 

While  I  believed,  therefore,  that  we  were  permitted  to  offer  a  proposition,  re 
lative  to  the  fishing  liberty  ;  and  that,  in  treating  concerning  this  liberty,  or  in 
discussing  our  claim  to  it,  we  in  no  way  violated  our  instructions,  nor  affected 
the  "enoral  rights  which  we  were  forbidden  to  bring  into  discussion;  I  did  be 
lieve,  and  do  still  believe,  that  we  were  expressly  and  unequivocally  forbidden 
to  offer  or  to  renew  a  stipulation  tor  me  free  navigation,  by  the  British,  of  the 
Mississippi,  a  river  within  our  exclusive  jurisdiction. 

Considering,  therefore,  the  felling  liberty  to  be  entirely  at  an. 
end,  without  a  new  stipulation  for  its  revival  ;  and  believing  that 
we  were  entirely  free  to  discuss  the  terms  and  conditions  of  such  a 
stipulation,  I  did  not  object  to  the  article  proposed  by  us,  because 
any  article  on  the  subject  was  unnecessary,  or  contrary  to  our  in 
structions,  but  1  objected  specially  to  that  article,  because,  by  con 
ceding  (105)  in  it,  to  Great  Britain,  the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi, 
(106)  we  not  only  directly  violated  our  instructions,  but  we  offered,  in  my  esti 
mation,  a  price  mut-.h  above  its  value,  and  which  could  not  justly  be  given. 

In  no  view  of  the  subject,  could  I  discover  any  (107)  analogy  01 
relation  beetweeu  the  two  objects  ;  and  the  only  reason  for  connecting 
them,  and  making  them  mutual  equivalents  for  each  other,  appeared 
to  be,  because  they  were  both  found  in  the  treaty  of  1783.  If  that 
treaty  was  abrogated  by  the  war,  as  I  consider  it  to  have  been,  any 
connection  between  its  parts  must  have  ceased,  and  the  liberty  of 
navigating  the  Mississippi,  by  British  subjects,  must,  at  least,  be 
completely  at  an  end;  for  it  will  not,  I  trust,  be  attempted  to  con 
tinue  it  by  a  UQ&  prescriptive  title,  or  to  consider  in  as  a  (108)  reserva 
tion  made  by  the  United  States  from  any  grant  of  sovereignty,  which, 
at  the  treaty  of  peace,  they  accorded  to  Great  Britain.  If,  indeed, 
it  were  such  a  reservation,  it  must  have  been  intended  for  (110)  our 
benefit,  and  of  (111)  course,  no  equivalent  for  the  fishing  (112,  privilege, 
likewise  for  our  benefit.  If  it  is  considered  as  a  reservation  made  by 
Great  Britain,  it  will  reverse  (113)  all  the  facts  assumed  by  us  ia  re 
lation  to  that  privilege. 

The  -114)  third  article  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  respecting  the  fish- 
eries,  and  the  (-H5>  eighth  of  that  treaty,  respecting  the  Mississippi, 
had  not  the  slightest  reference  to  each  other,  and  were  placed  as 
remote,  the  one  from  the  other,  as  the  limits  of  that  treaty  could 
well  admit  ;  whatever,  therefore,  (116-  might  have  been  the  cause  of 
inserting  the  fishing  liberty,  whether  it  was  a  voluntary  and  gratui 
tous  grant  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  or  extorted  from  her  as  a 
condition,  on  which  the  peace  depended,  it  could  have  had  no  re 
lation  ''H7)  with  the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi.  Besides,,  the 

10 


7#  [PRIVATE.] 

$o  fchis  river  must,  from  the  evident  views  of  the  parties  at  the 
time,  from  (118)  their  supposed  relations  to  each  other,  and  from  their 
fcnown  relations  to  a  third  (119)  power,  as  to  this  river,  have  been  con 
sidered  of  mutual  and  equal  advantage,  and  furnished  no  subject 
for  compensation  or  adjustment  in  any  other  provision  of  that  treaty, 
Both  parties  believed  that  this  river  touched  the  territories  of 
both,  and  that,  of  course,  both  had  a  right  to  its  navigation.  As 
Spain  possessed  both  banks  of  this  river,  to  a  considerable  distance 
from  its  mouth,  and  one  of  its  banks  nearly  throughout  its  whole 
extent,  both  parties  had  an  interest  in  uniting  to  prevent  that  power 
from  obstructing  its  navigation.  Had  not  the  article  been  intended 
to  engage  the  parties  in  relation  to  Spain,  they  (120)  would,  probably, 
have  limited  it  to  the  navigation  of  the  river  (121)  as  far  as  their  own 
territories  extended  on  it,  and  not  have  stipulated  for  this  naviga 
tion  to  the  ocean,  which  necessarily  carried  it  through  the  exclusive 
territories  of  Spain. 

If  the  circumstances  had  been,  in  fact,  such  as  the  parties  at  the 
time  believed  them  to  be,  and  with  a  view  to  which  they  acted  ;  or 
had  these  circumstances  subsequently  experienced  no  radical 
ohange  ;  Great  Britain  would  have  gained  now  no  more  than  she 
would  have  granted  by  the  (122)  revival  of  the  article  in  relation  to 
(123)  the  Mississippi,  and  would  not,  any  more  than  in  1783,  have  ac 
knowledged  any  equivalent  to  be  conferred  by  it  for  our  liberty 
relative  to  the  fisheries.  The  circumstances,  however,  assumed 
by  the  parties,  at  the  time,  in  relation  to  Great  Britain,  and  from 
which  her  rights  were  deduced,  have  not  only,  in  part,  been  disco 
vered  not  to  have  existed,  but  those  which  did  exist  have  been  en 
tirely  changed  by  subsequent  events.  It  has  (124)  been  ascertained 
that  the  territories  assigned  to  Great  Britain,  no  where,  in  fact, 
reached  the  Mississippi  ;  and  the  acquisition  of  Louisiana  by  the 
United  States  (125)  has  forever  removed  the  Spanish  jurisdiction 
that  river. 

The  whole  consideration,  therefore,  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain, 
whether  derived  from  her  territorial  rights,  or  from  her  part  of  the 
reciprocal  obligations  relative  to  Spain,  having  entirely  failed,  our 
engagements,  entered  into  011  account  of  that  consideration,  may  be 
fairly  construed  to  have  terminated  with  it. 

In  this  view  of  the  subject,  Great  Britain  could  have  had  no  title 
to  tfce  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  even  if  a  war  had  not  taken 
place  between  the  parties.  To  renew,  therefore,  the  claims  of 
Great  Britain,  under  that  article,  subject  to  this  construction,  would 
be  granting  her  nothing  ;  and  to  renew  that  article,  independent  of 
this  construction,  and  without  any  reference  to  the  circumstances 
that  attended  its  origin,  in  1783,  or  to  the  events  which  have  since 
occurred  in  relation  to  it,  would  be  granting  her  advantages  not 
only  entirely  (126)uni-lateral,  as  it  relates  to  the  article  itself,  butf 
(127) as  I  believe,  of  much  greater  importance  than  any  which  we 
could  derive  from  the  liberty  relative  to  the  fisheries 


79 

article  relative  to  this  river,  must,  from  the  evident  views  of  the 
parties  at  the  time,  from  (H8)  their  relations  to  each  other,  and  from 
their  known  relations  to  a  third  (119)  power,  have  been  considered  of 
mutual  and  equal  advantage,  and  furnished  no  subject  for  compen 
sation  or  adjustment  in  any  other  provision  of  that  treaty. 

Both  parties  believed  that  this  river  touched  the  territories  of 
both,  and  that  of  course  both  had  a  right  to  its  navigation.  As  Spain 
possessed  both  banks  of  this  river  to  a  considerable  distance  from 
its  mouth,  and  one  of  its  banks  nearly  throughout  its  whole  extent, 
both  parties  had  an  interest  in  uniting  to  prevent  that  power  from 
obstructing  its  navigation.  Had  not  the  article  been  intended  to  en 
gage  the  parties  in  relation  to  Spain,  they  (120)  probably  would  have 
limited  it  to  the  navigation  of  the|river,  (121)  so  far  as  their  own  terri 
tories  extended  on  it,  and  not  have  stipulated  for  its  navigation  to 
the  ocean,  which  necessarily  carried  it  through  the  exclusive  ter 
ritories  of  Spain.  If  the  circumstances  had  been,  in  fact,  such  as 
the  parties  at  the  time  believed  them  to  be,  and  with  a  view  to 
which  they  acted,  or  had  these  circumstances  subsequently  expe 
rienced  no  radical  change,  Great  Britain  would  have  gained  now, 
no  more  than  she  would  have  granted  by  the  (122)  renewal  of  the 
article  in  relation  to  (123)  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  and  would 
not,  any  more  than  in  1785,  have  acknowledged  any  equivalent  to 
be  conferred  by  it,  for  our  liberty  relative  to  the  fisheries.  The 
circumstances,  however,  assumed  by  the  parties  at  the  time,  in  re 
lation  to  Great  Britain,  and  from  which  her  rights  were  deduced., 
have  not  only,  in  part,  been  since  discovered  not  to  have  existed, 
but  those  which  did  exist  have  been  entirely  changed  by  subse 
quent  events. 

It  has  (124)  been  clearly  ascertained,  that  the  territories,  assigned  to 
Great  Britain,  no  where,  in  fact,  reached  the  Mississippi ;  and, the  ac 
quisition  of  Louisiana,  by  the  United  States,  (125)  had  forever  removed 
the  Spanish  jurisdiction  from  that  river.  The  whole  consideration, 
therefore,  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  whether  derived  from  her 
territorial  rights,  or  from  her  part  of  the  reciprocal  obligations,  re~ 
iative  to  Spain,  having  entirely  failed,  our  engagements,  entered 
into,  on  account  of  that  consideration,  may  be  fairly  construed  to 
have  terminated  with  it. 

In  this  view  of  the  subject,  Great  Britain  could  have  had  no  title 
to  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  even  if  a  war  had  not  taken 
place  between  the  parties.  To  renew,  therefore  the  claims  of 
Great  Britain,  under  that  article,  subject  to  this  construction,  would 
be  granting  her  nothing  ;  and,  to  renew  that  article,  independent  of 
this  construction,  and  without  any  reference  to  the  circumstances 
that  attended  its  origin  in  1783,  or  to  the  events  which  have  since 
occurred  in  relation  to  it,  would  be  granting  her  advantages  not 
only  entirely  (126)  unilateral,  as  it  relates  to  the  article  itself,  but, 
(127)  as  I  believed,  of  much  greater  importance  than  any  which  we 
could  derive  from  the  liberty  relative  to  the  fisheries. 


80  [PRIVATE.] 

If  the  article  which  we  (128)  offered  merely  intended  to  rescue  the 
third  and  eighth  articles  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  from  the  operation 
of  the  present  war,  and  to  continue  them  precisely  as  they  were 
immediately  prior  10  this  war,  the  third  article  being  then  in  full 
force,  and  the  eighth  article  being  no  longer  (129)  obligatory,  we 
should  have  attempted  to  exchange,  like  General  Drumrnond,  the 
dead  for  the  living. 

It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  the  British  government, 
should,  in  suspecting  such  an  intention,  (130)  have  rejected  our  pro 
position.  I  was  opposed,  however,  to  making  the  proposition,  not 
only  because  1  was  convinced  that  it  was  (131)  offered  with  no  such 
intention,  but  because  I  believed  it  would  give  to  Great  Britain 
the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  under  circumstances,  and 
evidently  for  an  object,  which  would  place  it  on  very  distinct 
grounds  from  those  on  which  it  was  placed  by  the  treaty  of  1783. 

The  whole  of  the  Mississippi  being  now  exclusively  within  the 
acknowledged  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  a  simple  renewal 
of  the  British  right  to  navigate  it  would  place  that  right  beyond 
the  reach  of  the  war,  and  of  every  other  previous  circumstance 
which  might  have  impaired  or  terminated  it;  and  the  (132) power 
to  grant,  on  our  part,  being  now  complete,  the  right  to  enjoy, 
(133)  on  hers,  under  our  grant,  must  be  complete  also. 

It  would  be  absurd  to  suppose  that  any  thing  impossible  was  in 
tended,  and  that  Great  Britain  was  to  be  allowed  to  navigate  the 
Mississippi  (134)  precisely  as  she  (135)  could  have  navigated  it  imme 
diately  after  the  treaty  of  1783  ;  as  if  her  territories  extended  to 
it,  and  as  if  Spain  was  (136)  in  entire  possession  of  one  of  its  banks 
and  of  a  considerable  portion  of  the  other.  The  (13?)  revival  of  the 
British  right  to  navigate  the  Mississippi  would  be,  (138)  under  exist 
ing  circumstances,  a  new  and  complete  grant  to  her,  measured  by 
these  circumstances,  and  thence  embracing  not  only  the  entire  free 
dom  of  the  whole  extent  of  (139)  that  river,  but  the  unrestrained  access 

to  it  across  our  territories.  If  we  did  not  intend  (14o)  this,  we  intended 
nothing  which  Great  Britain  could  accept ;  and,  whatever  else 
(14*1)  might  have  been  intended,  if  not  at  once  rejected  by  her,  would  hereafter 
have  been  the  subject  of  new  and  endless  controversy.  When,  how 
ever,  we  connected  the  revival  of  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi 
with  the  revival  of  the  (142)  liberty  of  taking  and  curing  fish  within 
the  British  jurisdiction,  two  things,  which  never  before  had  any  re 
lation  to  each  other,  we  evidently  meant,  if  we  acted  (143)  in  good 
faith,  not  only  to  concede,  as  well  as  to  obtain  something,  but  also 
to  be  understood  as  conceding  an  equivalent  for  what  we  obtained. 


In  thus  offering  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  and  the  access 
to  it  through  our  territories,  as  an  equivalent  for  the  fishing  liberty, 
we  not  only  placed  both  on  ground  entirely  different  from  that 
(144)  in  which  they  respectively  stood  in  the  treaty  of  1783,  and 
acted  somewhat  inconsistently  with  our  own  reasoning  relative  tc 


DUPLICATE. 


[ 

If  the  article  which  we  (128)  offered  was  merely  intended  to  rescue 
the  third  and  eighth  articles  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  from  the  opera 
tion  of  the  present  war,  and  to  continue  them  precisely  as  they 
were  immediately  prior,  to  this  war,  the  third  article  being  then  in 
full  force,  and  the  eighth  article  being  no  longer  (129)  operative,  we 
.should  have  attempted  to  exchange,  like  General  Drurnrnond,  the 
dead  for  the  living.  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  the  British 
government,  in  suspecting  such  an  intention,  (130)  should  have  re 
jected  our  proposition. 

1  was  opposed,  however,  to  making  the  proposition,  not  only  be 
cause  I  was  convinced  that  it  \v;ts  (131)  made  with  no  such  inten 
tion,  but  because  I  believed  it  would  give  to  Great  Britain  the  free 
navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  under  circumstances,  and  evidently 
for  an  object,  which  would  place  it  on  very  distinct  grounds  from 
those  on  which  it  was  placed  by  the  treaty  of  1783. 

The  whole  of  the  Mississippi  being  now  exclusively  within  the 
acknowledged  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  a  simple  renewal 
of  the  British  right  to  navigate  it  would  place  that  right  beyond  the 
reach  of  the  war  ;  and  every  other  previous  circumstance  which 
might  have  impaired  or  terminated  it,  and  the  (132)  right  to  grant, 
on  our  part,  being  now  complete,  the  right  to  enjoy,  (133)  on  the  part 
of  Great  Britain,  must  be  complete  also.  It  would  be  absurd  to  sup- 
pose  that  any  thing  impossible  was  intended,  and  that  Great  Britain 
was  to  be  allowed  to  navigate  the  Mississippi  (134)fcnly  as  she 
(135)  would  have  navigated  it  immediately  after  the  treaty  of  1783, 
as  if  her  territories  extended  to  it,  and  as  if  Spain  was  (136)  in  the 
entire  possession  of  one  of  its  banks,  and  of  a  considerable  portion 
of  the  other.  The  (137)  recognition  of  the  British  right  to  navigate 
the  Mississippi,  would  be,(l3&)  under  existing  circumstances,  a  new  and 
complete  grant  to  her,  measured  by  these  circumstances,  and, 
thence,  embracing  not  only  the  entire  freedom  of  the  whole  extent 

of  (139)  the  river  and  its  tributary  waters,  hut  unrestrained  access  to  it 
across  our  territories.  If  we  did  not  intend  (1^0)  to  offer  this,  we  in 
tended  to  offer  nothing  which  Great  Britain  could  accept  ;  and  what 
ever  else  (1^1)  we  might  have  intended  to  offer,  if  not  at  once  rejected  by  her, 
would  at  least  have  been,  hereafter,  the  subject  of  new  and  endless  con 
troversy. 

When,  however,  we  connected  the  revival  of  the  navigation  of 
the  Mississippi  with  the  revival  of  the  (142)  privilege  of  taking  and 
curing  fish  within  the  British  jurisdiction,  two  things  which  never 
before  had  any  relation  to-each  other,  we  evidently  meant,  if  we 
acted  (143)  with  good  faith,  not  only  to  concede,  as  well  as  to  ob 
tain  something,  but  also  to  be  understood  as  conceding  an  equiva 
lent  for  what  we  obtained. 

In  thus  offering  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  and  the  access 
to  it  through  our  territories,  as  an  equivalent  for  the  fishing  liberty, 
we  not  only  placed  both  on  ground  entirely  different  from  that 
(144)  on  which  they  respectively  stood  in  the  treaty  of  1783,  and 
acted  somewhat  inconsistently  with  our  own  reasoning,  relative  to 


82  [PRIVATE.] 

the  origin  and  immortality  of  the  latter,  but  we  offered  to  concede 
(145)  much  more  than  we  could  hope  to  gain  (146)  by  the  arrangement, 
with  whatever  view  its  comparative  effects  might  be  estimated. 

From  the  year  1783,  to  the  commencement  of  the  present  \var, 
the  actual  advantages  derived  from  the  fishing  privilege  by  the  peo 
ple  of  the  United  States,  were,  according  to  the*  best  information 
that  (147)  I  can  obtain  on  the  subject,  very  inconsiderable,  and  an 
nually  experiencing  a  voluntary  diminution.  , 

It  was  discovered  that  the  obscurity  and  humidity  of  the  atmos 
phere,  owing  to  almost  incessant  fogs,  in  the  high  northern  latitudes, 
where  this  privilege  was  chiefly  located,  prevented  the  effectual 
curing  of  fish  in  those  regions,  and,  consequently,  lessened  very 
much  the  value  of  the  (148)  liberty  of  taking  them  there.  By  far 
the  greatest  part  of  the  fish  taken  by  our  fishermen  before  the  pre 
sent  war.  was  (1*9)  caught  in  the  open  sea  or  (150)  upon  our  own 
coasts,  and  cured  on  (151)  our  own  shores.  This  branch  of  the  fish 
eries  has  been  found  to  be  inexhaustible,  and  has  been  pursued 
with  so  much  more  certainty  and  despatch  than  the  privileged  por 
tion  (152)  within  the  British  jurisdiction,  that  it  has  not  only  been  ge 
nerally  preferred  by  our  fishermen,  but  would  probably,  on  longer 
experience,  have  been  almost  universally  used  by  them.  It  was 
to  be  believed,  therefore,  that  a  discontinuance  of  the  privilege  of 
taking  and  curing  fish,  within  the  British  jurisdiction,  would  not, 
at  all,  diminish  the  aggregate  quantity  taken  by  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  or  (1J3)  very  materially  vary  the  details  of  the  business. 
That  part  of  the  fisheries  which  would  (154)  still  have  belonged  to  us 
as  a  nation,  being  exhaustless,  would  afford  an  ample  field  for  all 
the  capital  and  industry  hitherto  employed  in  the  general  business 
of  fishing,  or  merchandise  of  fish,  and  on  that  field  might  the  few 
fishermen,  who  had  hitherto  used  the  liberty  of  taking  and  curing 
fish  within  the  jurisdiction  of  Great  Britain,  exert  their  skill  and 
labour  without  any  serious  inconvenience.  (155)  This  liberty,  lia 
ble  (156)  in  a  very  considerable  degree  by  the  terms  in  which  it  was 
granted,  to  be  curtailed  by  the  government  and  subjects  of  a  foreign 
state  ;  already  growing  into  voluntary  disuse  by  our  own  citizens,  on 
account  of  the  difficulties  inseparable  from  it,  and  absolutely  inca 
pable  of  extension  ;  was  totally  unnecessary  to  us  for  subsistence 
or  occupation,  and  afforded,  (157)  in  no  way,  any  commercial  facility 
or  political  advantage.  This  privilege,  too,  while  it  was  thus  o£ 
little  (158)  or  no  utility  to  us,  cost  Great  Britain  literally  (159)  nothing. 

The  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  with  the  necessary  access 
to  it,  is  a  grant  of  a  very  different  character.  If  it  was  not  hereto 
fore  used  by  Great  Britain,  it  was,  perhaps,  because  she  did  not 
consider  herself  entitled  to  it,  or  because  the  circumstances  of  the 
moment  suspended  its  practical  utility.  The  treaty  of  1783  stipu 
lated  for  her  the  navigation  of  this  river,  under  the  presumption 
that  her  territories  extended  to  it,  and,  of  course,  could  not  intend 
to  give  her  an  access  to  it  through  our  territories.  The  British 
possessions  to  the  westward  of  Lake  Erie,  being  almost  entirely 


[DUPLICATE.]  83 

the  origin  and  immortality  of  the  latter,  but  we  offered  to  concede 
(145)  much  more  than  we  could  hope  to  gain  (l'*G)  by  the  arrangement. 


From  the  year  1783,  to  the  commencement  of  the  present  war, 
the  actual  advantages  derived  from  the  fishing  privilege  hy  the 
people  of  the  United  States,  were,  according  to  the  hest  informa 
tion  that  U*7)  we  could  obtain  on  the  subject,  very  inconsiderable 
and  annually  experiencing  a  voluntary  diminution. 

It  was  discovered  that  the  obscurity  and  humidity  of  the  atmos 
phere,  owing  to  almost  incessant  fogs  in  the  high  northern  latitudes, 
where  this  privilege  was  chiefly  located,  prevented  the  effectual 
curing  of  tish  in  those  regions,  and,  consequently,  lessened  very 
much  the  value  of  the  (148)  privilege  of  taking  them  there.  By  far 
the  greatest  part  of  the  fish  taken  by  our  fishermen  before  the 
present  war,  was  (l  49)  taken  in  the  open  sea,  or  (15o)on  our  own 
roasts,  and  curqd  on  (151)  our  shores.  This  branch  of  the  fisheries 
has  been  found  to  be  inexhaustible,  and  has  been  pursued  with  so 
much  more  certainty  and  despatch  than  the  privileged  portion 
(152)  within  British  jurisdiction,  that  it  has  not  only  been  generally 
preferred  by  our  fishermen,  but  would,  probably,  on  longer  expe 
rience,  have  been  almost  universally  used  by  them.  It  was  to  be 
believed,  therefore,  that  a  discontinuance  of  the  privilege  of  taking, 
and  curing  fish  within  the  British  jurisdiction,  would  not,  at  all, 
diminish  the  aggregate  quantity  taken  by  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  or  (153)  vary  materially  the  details  ot'the  business.  That  puit 
of  the  fisheries  which  would  (154)  still  belong  to  us  as  a  nation,  being 
exhaustless,  would  afford  an  ample  field  for  all  the  capital  and  in 
dustry  hitherto  employed  in  the  general  business  of  fishing,  or  mer 
chandise  offish  ;  and  on  that  field  might  the  few  fishermen  who  had, 
hitherto,  used  the  liberty  of  taking  and  curing  fish  within  the  ju 
risdiction  of  Great  Britain,  exert  their  skill  and  labour  without  any 
serious  inconvenience.  O55)  That  liberty,  liable,  (156)  to  a  very 
considerable  degree,  by  the  terms  in  which  it  was  granted,  to  be 
curtailed  by  the  government  and  subjects  of  a  foreign  state,  already 
growing  into  voluntary  disuse  by  eur  own  citizens,  on  account  of 
the  difficulties  inseparable  from  it,  and  absolutely  incapable  of  ex 
tension,  was  totally  unnecessary  to  us  for  subsistence  or  occupa 
tion,  and  afforded,  (157)  in  no  honest  way,  either  commercial  facility. 
or  political  advantage.  This  privilege,  too,  while  it  was  thus  oif 
little  (158)  and  precarious  utility  to  us,  cost  Great  Britain  literally 
(159)  miking. 

The  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  with  the  necessary  access 
to  it,  is  a  grant  of  a  very  different  character.  If  it  was  not,  here 
tofore,  used  by  Great  Britain,  it  was,  perhaps,  because  she  did  not 
consider  herself  entitled  to  it;  or  because  the  circumstances  of  the 
moment  suspended  its  practical  utility.  The  treaty  of  1783  stipu 
lated,  for  her,  the  navigation  of  this  river,  under  the  presumption 
that  her  territories  extended  to  it,  and  of  course,  could  not  intend 
fo  give  her  access  to  it  through  our  territories.  The  l-riti«h  pos- 
?ps«ions  to  the  westward  of  Lake  Erie  being  almost  entirely  ians«t- 


iJ4  [PRIVATE.! 

^unsettled,  rendered,  perhaps,  the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi, 
for  the  moment,  of  little  advantage  to  her,  particularly  as  her  right 
to  reach  it  was  at  least  equivocal ;  and  as,  by  another  treaty,  she 
could  carry  on  trade  with  our  Indians. 

This  navigation  might,  indeed,  for  a  long  time  to  come,  be  of  lit 
tle  use  to  her  for  all  the  (160)  legitimate  purposes  of  transit  and  in 
tercourse  ;  but  every  change  that  could  take  place  in  this  respect 
must  increase  its  importance  to  her;  while  every  change  in  the 
fishing  liberty  (161)  would  be  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  United 
States. 

The  freedom  (162)  of  the  Mississippi,  however,  is  not  to  be  esti 
mated  by  the  mere  legitimate  uses  that  would  be  maJe  of  it.  The 
unrestrained  and  undefined  access  which  would  have  been  inferred 
from  the  article  which  we  proposed,  (103)  would  have  placed  in  the 
hands  of  Great  Britain  and  her  subjects  all  the  facilities  of  commu 
nication  with  our  own  citizens,  and  with  the  Indians  inhabiting  the 
immense  regions  of  our  western  territory.  It  is  not  in  the  nature 
of  things  that  these  facilities  should  not  have  been  abused  for  un 
righteous  purposes.  A  vast  field  for  contraband  (Iti^)  and  intrigue 
would  have  been  laid  open,  and  our  western  territories  would  have 
swarmed  with  British  smugglers  and  British  emissaries.  The  re 
venue  would  have  been  defrauded  by  the  illicit  introduction  of 
English  merchandise,  and  the  lives  of  our  citizens,  and  the  security 
of  a  valuable  portion  of  our  (165)  country  exposed  to  Indian  hostilities,. 
excited  by  an  uncontrolled  British  influence.  (166)  if  our  in 
structions  to  guard  against  such  an  influence  forbid  us  to  renew  the  British  li 
berty  to  trade  with  our  Indians,  we  certainly  violated  the  sp;;if  of  those  instruc 
tions  in  offering  the  means  of  exercising  that  influence  witi  still  greater  facility 
and  effect  than  could  result  from  that  liberty. 


What  was  there  in  the  fishing  liberty,  either  of  gain  to  us,  or  IGSJ- 
to  Great  Britain,  to  warrant,  in  consideration  of  it,  a  grant  to  her  of 
puch  mean-;  of  fraud  arid  annoyance  ?  What  justice  or  equality  was 
there  in  exposing  to  all  the  horrors  ot  savage  warfare  the  unoffend 
ing  citizens  of  an  immense  tract  of  territory,  (167)  not  at  all  benefited 
by  the  fishing  privilege,  merely  to  provide  for  the  doubtful  accom 
modation  of  a  (168)  few  fishermen,  in  a  remote  quarter,  entirely  ex 
empt  from  the  danger  ? 

Such  have  been  the  reasons  which  induced  me  to  differ  from  a 
majority  of  my  colleagues  with  regard  to  the  article  in  question, 
and  which  I  trust  Will  be  (169)  thought  sufficient,  at  least,  to  vindicate 
my  motives. 

The  unfeigned  respect  which  I  feel  for  the  integrity,  talents,  and 
judgment  of  those  gentlemen,  would  restrain  me  from  opposing 
them  on  slight  grounds,  an,d  a  deference  for  their  opinions  makes 
me  almost  fear  that  I  have  erred  in  dissenting  from  them  on  the 
present  occasion.  I  can  but  rejoice,  however,  that  the  article,  as 


[DUPLICATE,]  35 

tied,  rendered;  perhaps,  the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  for 
the  moment,  of  little  advantage  to  her  ;  particularly,  as  her  right 
to  reach  it  was,  at  least,  equivocal ;  and,  as  by  another  treaty,  she 
could  carry  on  trade  with  our  Indians. 

This  navigation  might,  indeed,  for  a  long  time  to  come,  be  of 
little  use  to  her  for  all  the  (160)  legitimate  purposes  of  transit  and 
intercourse  ;  but  every  change  that  could  take  place  in  this  respect 
must  increase  its  importance  to  her,  while  every  change  in  the 
fishing  liberty  (161)  must  be  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  United 
States. 

The  freedom  (162)  of  navigating  the  Mississippi,  however,  is  not 
to  be  estimated  by  the  mere  legitimate  uses  that  would  be  made  of 
it.  The  unrestrained  and  undefined  access,  which  would  have 
been  inferred  from  the  article  which  we  proposed,  (163)  must  have 
placed  in  the  hands  of  Great  Britain  and  her  subjects,  all  the  facili 
ties  of  communication  with  our  own  citizens,  and  with  the  Indians 
inhabiting  the  immense  regions  of  our  western  territory.  It  is  not 
in  the  nature  of  things  that  these  facilities  should  not  have  been 
abused  for  unrighteous  purposes.  A  vast  field  for  contraband  (164) 
and  for  intrigue  would  have  been  laid  open,  and  our  western  territo 
ries  would  have  swarmed  with  British  smugglers  and  British  em 
issaries.  The  revenue  would  have  been  defrauded  by  the  illicit 
introduction  of  English  merchandise,  and  the  lives  of  our  citizens, 
and  the  security  of  a  valuable  portion  of  our  (165)  country,  would 
have  been  exposed  to  Indian  hostility,  excited  by  an  uncontrolled  Bri 
tish  influence.  (166)  If  our  instructions  of  the  15th  of  April,  1813,  already 
cited,  forbid  us,  in  order  to  guard  against  such  an  influence,  to  renew  the  treaty 
of  1794,  "  allowing  the  North  West  Company  and  British  traders  to  carry  on 
trade,  with  the  Indian  tribes  within  our  limits,  a  privilege,  the  pernicious  effects 
of  which  have  been  most  sensibly  felt  in  the  present  war,"  we  certainly  violated 
the  spirit  of  those  instructions  in  offering  the  means  of  exercising  that  influence 
with  still  greater  facility  and  effect  than  could  result  from  that  privilege. 

What  was  there  in  the  fishing  liberty,  either  of  gain  to  us  or  loss 
to  Great  Britain,  to  warrant,  in  consideration  of  it,  a  grant  to  her 
of  such  means  of  fraud  and  annoyance  ?  What  justice  or  equality 
was  there,  in  exposing  to  all  the  horrors  of  savage  warfare,  the 
unoffending  citizens  of  an  immense  tract  of  territory,  (167)  not  at  all, 
or  but  faintly,  benefited  by  the  fishing  privilege,  merely  to  provide 
for  the  doubtful  accommodation  of  a  (168)  few  fishermen,  annually  de 
creasing  in  number,  in  a  remote  quarter,  and  entirely  exempt  from 
the  danger. 

Such  have  been  the  reasons  which  induced  me  to  differ  from  a 
majority  of  my  colleagues  with  regard  to  the  article  in  question, 
and  which,  1  trust,  will  be  (169)  deemed  sufficient,  at  least,  to  vindi 
cate  my  motives. 

'I1  he  unfeigned  respect  which  I  feel  for  the  integrity,  talents, 
and  judgment,  of  those  gentlemen,  would  restrain  me  from  oppos 
ing  them  on  slight  grounds,  and  a  deference  for  their  opinions  makes 
me  almost  fear  that  I  have  erred  in  dissenting  from  them  on  the 
present  occasion.  I  can  but  rejoice,  however,  that  the  article,  as 

n 


#6 

proposed  bj  us,  was  rejected  by  Great  Britain  ;  whatever  were 
her  reasons  for  rejecting  it ;  whether,  as  above  suggested.  (170)  she 
suspected  some  tacit  reservation,  or  want  of  faith  on  our  part,  or  sup 
posed,  from  the  price  we  at  once  bid  for  the  fishing  privilege,  that 
we  overrated  its  value,  and  might  concede  for  it  even  more  than 
(171)  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  with  all  its  accessary  advan 
tages. 

(172)  We  are  still  at  liberty  to  negotiate  for  that  privilege  in  a  treaty  of  com 
merce,  should  it  be  found  expedient,  and  to  offer  for  it  an  equivalent,  fair  in  its 
comparative  value,  and  just  in  its  relative  effects.  In  any  other  way,  I  trust, 
we  shall  not  consent  to  purchase  its  renewal. 

I  have  the  honour  to  be,  with  profound  respect, 

Sir,  your  faithful  and  obedient  servant, 

JON  A.  RUSSELL. 

My  argument  to  demonstrate  the  abrogation  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  by  the  pre 
sent  war,  and  the  consequent  discontinuance  of  the  fishing  privilege,  will,  I  trust, 
not  be  ascribed  to  any  hostility  to  those  who  were  interested  in  that  privilege.  I 
have  been  always  ready,  and  am  still  ready,  to  make  every  sacrifice  for  the  pre 
servation  of  that  privilege  which  its  nature  and  utility  can  justify;  but  I  have 
conscientiously  believed  that  the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  was  pregnant 
with  too  much  mischief  to  be  offered  indirectly  under  our  construction  of  the 
treaty,  or  directly,  as  a  new  equivalent  for  the  liberty  of  taking  and  curing  fish 
within  the  British  jurisdiction. 

We  had  three  other  ways  of  proceeding  : 

First.  To  contend  for  the  indestructibility  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  thence  infer- 
ing  the  continuance  of  the  fishing  privilege,  without  saying  any  thing  about  the 
navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  which  would  have  reserved  our  right  of  contesting 
this  navigation  on  the  grounds  I  have  mentioned,  specially  applicable  to  it. 

Secondly.  To  have  considered  the  treaty  at  an  end,  and  offered  a  reasonable 
equivalent,  wherever  it  might  be  found,  for  the  fishing  privilege. 

Thirdly.  To  have  made  this  liberty  a  sine  qua  mm  of  peace,  as  embraced  by 
the  principle  of  status  ante  bellum. 

To  either  of  these  propositions  I  would  have  assented,  bull  could  not  consent 
to  grant  to  revive  the  British  right  to  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  in  or.de/ 
•  o  procure  or  preserre  the  fishina;  liberty. 


[DUPLICATE.] 


87 


proposed  by  us,  was  rejected  by  Great  Britain,  whatever  were  her 
reasons  for  rejecting  it  ;  whether,  as  above  suggested,  (170)  she  might 
have  suspected  some  tacit  reservation,  or  want  of  faith,  on  our  part  ; 
or  supposed,  from  the  price  we  at  once  bid  for  the  fishing  privi 
lege,  th.it  we  overrated  its  value,  and  might  concede  for  it  even 
more  than  (171)  the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  with  all  its  ac 
cessary  advantages. 

(172)  Let  me  not,  in  any  thing  which  I  have  said,  be  misunderstood.  In 
judging  on  the  interests  of  the  great  whole,  I  am  not  disposed  to  undervalue  the 
interests  on  any  of  the  constituent  parts.  No  one  can  more  highly  appreciate 
than  I  do,  a  branch  of  industry  which  not  only  adds  to  national  wealth,  but 
<eems  to  create  it.  .Nor  can  any  one  more  warmly  admire  the  usefulness  and 
patriotism  of  those  citizens  who  are  engaged  in  it,  and  who  have  never  ceased 
to  deserve  well  of  the  republic.  In  times  of  peace  they  bring  home,  amidst  con 
flicting  elements,  the  treasures  of  the  deep  to  enrich  their  country  ;  and  in  times 
of  war  they  contribute,  by  their  skill  and  intrepidity,  to-  her  defence  and  glory. 
Hut,  in  our  country,  where  all  are  equal,  the  essential  security  and  prosperity  of 
the  many  must  be  preferred  to  the  convenience  and  minor  interests  of  the  few. 
In  giving  this  preference,  I  will  fiankly  confess  I  had  to  silence  early  prepos- 
sions  and  local  predilections,  and  to  listen  to  the  councils  of  a  more  enlarged 
patriotism;  and  io  this  patriotism  I  dare  appeal  for  my  vindication,  not  only 
with  those  to  whom  I  am  officially  responsible,  but  with  those  with  whom  I  am 
more  immediately  connected  in  society,  and  whose  interests  may  be  considered 
to  have  been  unfavourably  affected  by  the  views  which  I  have  deemed  it  to  be 
my  duty  to  adopt.  I  have  always  been  willing  to  make  any  sacrifice  for  the 
fishing  privilege,  which  its  nature,  or  comparative  importance  could  justify,  but 
I  conscientiously  believe  that  the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  and  th» 
access  to  it  which  we  expressly  offered,  were  pregnant  with  too  much  mischief 
to  be  offered,  indirectly,  under  our  construction  of  the  treaty  ;  or,  directly,  as 
they  were  in  fact  offered,  as  a  new  equivalent  for  the  liberty  of  taking  and  dry 
ing  fish  within  the  British  jurisdiction. 


frankl     a 


Great  Britain,  calculating  on  the 
h  aTsent  •< 
the"mist'ressot  EToi 

To  aHaTrdrm  he 


aters  ;  and  that_she  did  notr  in  this  event 

ofiquesT'under  the  terms"ofthe  treaty  of  Ghent. 
sters  ha"d,  Ulinosl  fium   tne" 'commencement  of  the  negotiation,  not 


iute 

Her 

only  affected  to  consider  our  acquisition  of  Louisiana  as  evidence  of  a  spirit  of 
agrandizement,  but  insinuated  a  defect  in  our  title  to  it.  Expecting,  therefore, 
to  obtain  the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  for  nothing,  she  would  not  con 
sent  to  part  even  with  the  fishing  liberty  as  an  equivalent.  If  she  be  disap- 
poi nted  in  her  views  nn  Louisiana,  »"'»  I  tr-ist  in  God  and  the  valour  "ok  trie" 
wesfthat  she  will  be,  I  shall  not  be  surprised  if,  here?^tprt  *^p  Srant  us  the. 
fi £ hifig  privilege,  wlncn  Costs  her  absolutely  nothing  w'thfuit  Tmj-T"rclrnvTJMii'>~ 

AnuijTrateT^ve  are  still  at  liberty  to  negotiate  for  that  privilege  in  a  treaty 
of  commerce,  and  to  offer  foi  it  an  equivalent,  fair  in  its  comparative  value, 
and  just  in  its  relative  effects  ;  and  to  negotiate  for  it  in  this  w;iy  is  evidently 
more  wise  than  to  demand  it  as  a  condition  of  peace,  or  to  offer  for  it  a  price 
beyond  its  worth,  and  which,  however  excessive,  runs  the  hazard  of  being  re 
fused,  merely  by  the  operation  of  those  unaccommodating  passions  which  are 
inevitably  engendered  by  a  state  of  war. 

I  have  the  honour  to  be,  with  the  most  profound  respect,  sir,  your  faithful 
and  obedient  servant,  JOJVA.  RUSSELL. 

To  the  Hou'ble  JAMES  MONROE, 

Sec'yoJ  State  of  the  United  States,  &c.  kc,  &c. 

A  true  copy  of  a  paper  left  by  Jonathan  Russell,  esq.  at  the  De 
partment  of  State,  22d  April,  1822,  to  be  communicated  to  the 
House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States. 

J.  Q.   ADAMS,  Secretary  of  State . 


REMARKS 

On  a  Paper  delivered  by  Mr.  Jonathan  Russell,  at  the  Department  of  State,  on 
the  22<f  of  April,  1822,  to  be  communicated  to  the  House  of  Representatives, 
as  the  duplicate  of  a  Letter  written  by  him  at  Paris,  the  llth  of  February  t 
1815,  to  the  then  Secretary  of  State,  and  as  the  Letter  called  for  by  the  Resolu* 
tion  of  the  House,  of  19th  April,  1822. 

The  first  remark  that  presents  itself  upon  this  duplicate,  is,  that 
it  is  not  a  copy  of  the  letter  really  written  by  Mr.  Russell,  at  Paris, 
on  the  llth  of  February,  1815,  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  and  re 
ceived  by  him.  The  latter  was  marked  "private,"  and,  as  such, 
was  not  upon  the  files  of  the  Department  of  State  ;  and,  although 
of  the  same  general  purport  and  tenor  with  the  so-called  duplicate, 
differed  from  it  in  several  highly  significant  passages,  of  which  the 
following  parallel,  extracted  from  the  two  papers,  presents  one 
example  : 


ORIGINAL. 

"  How  far  we  conformed  to 
this  instruction,  with  regard  to 
the  general  right  to  Louisiana,  it 
is  not  necessary  for  me  here  to 
inquire  ;  but  certainly  the  majo 
rity  believed  (1^3)  themselves  per 
mitted  to  offer  a  very  explicit  pro 
position  with  regard  to  the  navi 
gation  of  its  principal  (104)  river. 
/  believed,  with  them,  that  we  were  so 
permitted,  and  tnat  we  were,  likewise, 
permitted  to  offer  a  proposition  relative 
to  the  fishing  liberty,  and,  had  the  oc 
casion  required  it,  to  make  proposals 
concerning  the  trade  to  the  British 
East  Indies.  I  was  persuaded,  that 
treating  relative  to  these  privileges,  or 
discussing  the  obligation  or  expediency 
of  granting  or  withholding  them,  re 
spectively,  violated,  in  no  way,  our 
instructions,  or  affected  the  general 
rights  which  we  were  forbidden  to 
bring  into  discussion,'' 


DUPLICATE. 

"  How  far  we  conformed  to 
this  instruction,  with  regard  to 
the  general  right  to  Louisiana,  it 
is  not  necessary  for  me  here  to 
inquire  ;  but  certainly  the  majo 
rity  believed  (103)  themselves  to  be 
permitted,  their  own  construction  to  the 
contrary  notwithstanding,  to  offer  a 

very  explicit  proposition  with 
regard  to  the  navigation  of  its 
principal  (104)  river;  now,  this  of 
fer,  I  considered,  for  the  reasons  just 
suggested,  not  to  be  a  violation  of  the 
instructions  in  question,  but  I  consi 
dered  it  to  be  against  both  the  letter 
and  the  spirit  of  our  other  instructions 
of  the  15th  of  April,  1813.  By  these 
instructions,  we  were  explicitly  and 
implicitly  directed  *  to  avoid  any  sti 
pulation  which  might  restrain  the  Unit 
ed  States  from  excluding  the  British 
traders  from  the  navigation  of  the  lakes 
and  rivers  exclusively  within  our  own 
jurisdiction^  This  instruction  applied 
with  the  greater  force  to  the  .Missis 
sippi,  because,  as  it  is  believed,  it  was 
the  only  river  to  which  it  could  apply. 
"  While  I  believed,  therefore,  that 
we  were  permitted  to  offer  a  proposi 
tion  relative  to  the  fishing  liberty,  and 
that  in  treating  concerning  this  liberty, 
or  in  discussing  our  claim  to  it,  we  in 
no  way  violated  our  instructions,  nor 
affected  the  general  rights  which  we 
were  forbidden  to  bring  into  discussion, 
3  did  believe,  und  do  still  believe,  that 


89 

DRIGINAI,  DUPLICATE. 

we  were  expressly  and  unequivocally 
forbidden  to  offer,  or  to  renew,  a  stipu 
lation  for  the  free  navigation,  by  tb« 
British,  of  the  Mississippi,  a  river 
within  our  exclusive  jurisdiction.'* 

It  is  here  seen  that,  while  in  the  original  letter  Mr.  Russell  did, 
with  the  majority  of  his  colleagues,  believe  that  we  were  permitted 
by  our  instructions  to  make  the  proposition  with  regard  to  the  na 
vigation  of  the  Mississippi,  as  well  as  a  proposition  relative  to  the 
fishing  liberty,  he  had,  when  writing  the  duplicate,  brought  himself 
to  the  belief,  not  only  that  we  were  not  so  permitted,  but  that  he 
had,  even  at  Ghent,  considered  it  as  a  direct  violation  both  of  the 
letter  and  spirit  of  our  explicit  and  implicit  instructions  of  15th 
April,  1813.  The  solution  of  this  difference  in  the  mind  of  Mr. 
Russell,  between  the  writing  of  the  original  and  the  duplicate  of 
his  letter,  may  be  found  in  this  circumstance.  The  proposition  re 
lating  to  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  and  the  fishery,  was  made 
to  the  British  plenipotentiaries  on  the  1st  of  December,  1814.  It 
had  been  discussed  at  the  meetings  of  the  American  mission,  on  the 
preceding  28th  and  29th  of  November.  On  the  24th  of  that  month, 
the  American  plenipotentiaries  had  received  a  letter  of  instructions 
from  the  Secretary  of  State,  dated  19th  October,  1814,  and  con 
taining  the  following  passages  : 

•*  It  has  been  judged  proper  to  communicate  to  Congress  so 
"  much  of  the  instructions'  given  to  you  by  this  Department,  as 
44  would  show  the  terms  on  which  you  were  authorized  to  make 
44  peace.  These,  as  well  as  your  communications,  have  been  print- 
"  ed,  and  several  copies  are  now  forwarded  to  you,  as  it  is  believed 
"  they  may  be  usefully  disposed  of  in  Europe.  Should  any  circum 
stance  have  unexpectedly  prolonged  the  negotiation,  and  you  find 
*'  the  British  commissioners  disposed  to  agree  to  the  status  ante  bel- 
'*  Zwm,  you  will  understand  that  you  are  authorized  to  make  it  the 
"basis  of  a  treaty." 

Now,  the  status  ante  bellum,  upon  which  we  were  thus  expressly 
and  unequivocally  permitted  to  conclude  a  treaty,  included  not  only 
the  recognition  of  the  entire  treaty  of  peace  of  1783,  but  the  re 
vival  of  the  first  ten  articles  of  the  treaty  of  1794  ;  not  only  the 
freedom  to  the  British  to  navigate  the  Mississippi,  but  free  ingress 
into  our  territories,  and  free  trade  with  our  Indians.  And  so  en 
tirely  was  that  part  of  the  instructions  of  15th  April,  1813,  novr 
cited  by  Mr.  Russell,  considered  by  the  President  as  cancelled, 
that  it  was  omitted  from  that  copy,  which  had  been  communicated 
to  Congress,  of  "  so  much  of  the  instructions  as  would  show  the 
terms  on  which  we  were  authorized  to  make  peace, "and  of  which 
several  printed  copies  were  thus  forwarded  to  us.  (Sec  WaiCs 
State  Papers,  vol.  IX,  p.  339-358.) 

It  was  scarcely  possible  that,  within  the  compass  of  one  week, 
Mr.  Russell  should  have  forgotten  the  receipt  of  the  instruction  of 


19th  October,  1814,  fresh  from  Washington  ;  nor  at  all  possible 
that  he  should  have  considered  us  as  then  bound  by  the  instruction 
of  15th  April,  1813,  to  which,  in  his  duplicate,  he  now  so  emphati 
cally  refers.  The  llth  of  February,  1815,  was  yet  so  recent  to 
the  date  of  the  conclusion  of  the  treaty,  that,  in  writing  the  original 
of  his  letter,  the  recollection  of  the  new  instructions  of  October, 
1814,  had  doubtless  not  escaped  him.  But  when  the  duplicate  was 
written,  other  views  had  arisen  ;  and  their  aspects  are  discovered 
in  the  aggravation  of  charges  against  the  memory  of  a  dead,  and  the 
character  of  living  colleagues. 

But  whether  the  real  sentiments  of  iVlr.  Russell,  at  Paris,  on  the 
llth  of  February,  1815,  with  regard  to  the  transactions  to  which 
this  passage  relates,  are  to  be  taken  as  indicated  in  the  original,  or 
in  the  duplicate,  certain  it  is  that  the  vehement  objections  to  the 
proposed  article,  which,  in  the  duplicate,  appear  to  have  made  so 
deep  an  impression  on  his  mind,  had  as  little  been  made  known  to 
his  colleagues  at  the  time  of  the  discussions  at  Ghept,  as  they  ap 
pear  to  have  been  to  himself,  when  writing  the  original  of  the  same 
letter. 

The  proposal,  to  which  the  whole  of  Mr.  Russell's  letter,  in  both 
Us  various  readings,  relates,  was  made  to  the  British  plenipotentia 
ries,  not  by  a  majority,  but  by  the  whole  of  the  American  mission, 
including  Mr.  Russell,  as  may  be  seen  by  the  protocol  of  the  confer 
ence  of  the  1st  December,  1814,  and  by  the  letter  from  the  Ameri 
can  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  of  14th  December,  1814.  In 
that  letter,  already  communicated  to  the  House,  the  American  ple 
nipotentiaries,  referring  to  the  article  in  question,  expressly  say  : 
*'  To  such  an  article,  which  they  viewed  as  merely  declaratory,  the 
undersigned  had  no  objection,  and  have  offered  to  accede  :"  and  to 
that  letter  the  name  of  Mr.  Russell  is  subscribed. 

At  the  time  when  the  letter  from  Paris  was  written,  or  within  a 
few  days  thereafter,  all  the  colleagues,  whose  conduct  it  so  severe 
ly  censures,  in  relation  to  measures,  to  which  Mr.  Russell's  sanction 
and  signature  stood  equally  pledged  with  their  own,  were  at  Paris, 
and  in  habits  of  almost  daily  intercourse  with  him.  They  little  sus 
pected  the  colouring  which  he  was  privately  giving,  without  com 
munication  of  it  to  them,  of  their  conduct  and  opinions,  to  the  head* 
of  the  government,  by  whom  he  and  they  had  been  jointly  employ 
ed  in  a  public  trust  of  transcendent  importance  ;  or  the  uses  to 
which  this  denunciation  of  them  was  afterwards  to  be  turned. 

Had  the  existence  of  this  letter  from  Paris  been,  at  the  time  when 
it  was  written,  known  to  the  majority  of  the  mission,  at  whose  pro 
posal  this  offer  had  been  made  ;  to  that  majority,  who  believed  that 
the  article  was  perfectly  compatible  with  their  instructions,  con 
sistent  with  the  argument  maintained  by  the  mission,  important  for 
securing  a  very  essential  portion  of  the  righttothe  fisheries,  and  in 
nowise  affecting  unfavourably  the  interest  of  any  section  of  the 
Union,  they  would  doubtless  have  felt  that  its  contents  called  much 
more  forcibly  upon  them,  to  justify  to  their  own  government  them- 


91 

selves  and  their  motives  for  making  that  proposal,  than  Mr.  Rus 
sell  could  be  called  upon  to  justify  himself  for  merely  having  been 
in  the  minority  upon  the  question  whether  an  article  should  be  pro 
posed,  which  he  did  actually  concur  in  proposing,  and  which  the 
adverse  party  had  not  thought  worth  accepting. 

The  writer  of  these  remarks  is  not  authorized  to  speak  for  his 
colleagues  of  th»  majority  ;  one  of  whom  is  now  alike  beyond  the 
reach  of  censure  and  panegyrick  ;  and  the  other,  well  able,  when 
he  shall  meet  this  disclosure,  to  defend  himself.  But  he  believes 
of  them  what  he  affirms  of  himself,  that  had  they  entertained  of  the 
projected  article,  and  of  the  argument  maintained  by  the  mission, 
ihe  sentiments  avowed  in  either  of  the  variations  of  Mr.  Russell's 
letter  from  Paris,  no  consideration  would  have  induced  them  to  con 
cur  in  proposing  it,  or  to  subscribe  their  names  to  a  paper  declar 
ing  that  they  had  no  objection  to  it. 

Still  less,  if  possible,  would  they  have  thought  it  reconcileable 
with  their  duty  to  their  country,  had  they  entertained  those  senti 
ments,  to  have  subscribed,  on  the  25th  of  December,  1814,  the 
joint  letter  of  the  mission  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  already  com 
municated  to  Congress,  and  on  the  same  day  to  have  written  the 
separate  and  secret  letter,  fore-announcing  that  of  llth  of  Februa 
ry,  1815,  from  Paris. 

Besides  the  memorable  variation  between  the  original  and  du 
plicate  of  the  letter  of  llth  February,  1815,  which  has  been  exhi 
bited  in  parallel  passages  extracted  from  them,  there  are  others  not 
less  remarkable.  In  the  course  of  the  duplicate,  the  total  and  un 
qualified  abandonment  of  the  rights  of  the  poor  fishermen,  is  com 
pensated  by  an  eloquent  panegyric  upon  their  usefulness  to  the 
country,  their  hardy  industry,  their  magnanimous  enterprise,  and 
their  patriotic  self-devotion.  Little  of  this  appears  in  the  original ; 
and  that  little,  in  the  after-thought  of  a  postscript.  Towards  the 
close  of  the  duplicate,  the  spirit  of  prophecy  takes  possession  of  the 
writer.  By  his  '*  trust  in  God,  and  in  the  ralour  of  the  West,"  he 
foresees  the  victory  of  General  Jackson  at  New-Orleans.  He  fore 
sees  the  convention  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain, 
of  October,  1818.  In  the  original  there  is  no  prophecy — no  "  trust 
in  God,  and  in  the  valour  of  the  West." 

With  all  these  varieties  the  two  copies  of  the  letter  form  an  ela 
borate  and  deeply  meditated  dissertation  to  prove  : 

1.  That  the  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain, 
of  1783,  the  treaty  which  upon  its  face  is  a  treaty  of  independ 
ence,  a  treaty  of  boundaries,  a  treaty  of  partition,  as  well  as  a 
treaty  of  peace — was,  in  his  estimation,  all  his  signatures  at 
Ghent  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding,  a  mere  treaty  of  peace, 
totally  abrogatevi  by  the  war  of  1812. 

2.  That  the  same  treaty,  was  a  treaty  sui  generis,  consisting  of 
two  parts  ;  one,  of  rights  appertaining  to  sovereignty  and  in 
dependence  ;  and  the  other,  of  special  grants  and  privileges ; 
of  which  the  former  were  permanent,  and  the  latter  abrogated 
by  tke  war. 


92 

3.  That  the  principles  assumed,  and  the  argument  maintained, 
by  the  majority  of  the  Ghent    Mission,  and  to  which  he  had 
subscribed  his  name  in  all  the  joint  communications  of  the 
Mission,  as  well  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries  as  to  his  own 
government,  were  a  mass  of  errors,  inconsistencies,  and  absur 
dities. 

4.  That  the  offer  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries  of  a  right  to  the 
British  to  navigate  the  Mississippi,  was,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
majority,  and  also  in  his  own  opinion,  permitted  by  our  in 
structions,  and  in  no  ways  violated  them. 

5.  That  the  same  offer  was  directly  contrary  to  the  construction 
given   by  the   majority  to  their  instructions,  and,  as   he   had 
always  thought,  and  still  thought,  contrary  to  explicit  and 
implicit,  express  arid  unqualified  prohibitions,  in  those  instruc 
tions. 

6.  That  the  offer  of  the  right  to  navigate  the  Mississippi,  as  an 
equivalent  for  the  fisheries,  was  the  offer  of  an  excessive  price, 
for  a  privilege  worth  little  or  nothing. 

7.  That,  extravagant  as  that  offer  (to  which  he  signed  a  letter 
declaring  that  he  had  no  objection)  was,  it  was  rejected  by 
the  adverse  party  ;  because  they  thought  it  an  offer  of  the 
dead  for  the  living  ;  or  because,  they  hoped  to  get  still  more 
for  the  worthless  privilege  ;  or,  because,  they  expected  to 
take  and  keep  Louisiana,  and  thus  get  the  navigation  of  the 
Mississippi  for  nothing;  or,  because,  they  were  blinded  by  the 
unhappy   passions  incident  to  war  ;  but  that  he  foresaw,  that 
they  would'nEREAFTER  grant  all  the  valuable  part  of  the  same 
worthless  privilege  far  nothing. 

8.  That  there  was  no  sort  of  relation  whatsoever  between  a 
privilege  for  the  British  to  navigate  in  waters  within  our  ju 
risdiction,  and  a  privilege  for  us  to  fish  in  waters  within  Bri 
tish  jurisdiction  ;  because  one  of  these  privileges  had  been 
stipulated  in  the  third,  and  the  other  in  the  eighth  article,  of 
the  treaty  of  1783  ;  and  therefore,  that  it  was  absurd  to  offer 
one  as  an  equivalent  for  the  other. 

3.  Lastly,  that  the  offer  to  the  British  of  the  right  to  navigate 
the  Mississippi,  was  pregnant  with  mischief  to  the  western 
country — to  '*  the  unoffending  citizens  of  an  immense  tract  of 
"  territory,  not  at  all,  or  but  faintly  benefited  by  the  fishing 
"  privilege,  merely  to  provide  for  the  doubtful  accommodation 
"  of  a  few  fishermen,  annually  decreasing  in  number,  in  a  re- 
"  mote  quarter,  and  entirely  exempt  from  the  danger." 
Upon  most  of  these  points,  so  far  as  argument  is  concerned,  it 
might,  upon  the  mere  statement  of  Mr.  Russell's  positions,  be  left 
to  his  ingenuity  to  refute  itself.     His  first  and  second  points,  with 
regard  to  the  character  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  considered  as  doc 
trines,  are  evidently  inconsistent  with  each  other.     The  variation 
between  the  original  and  duplicate  of  his  letter  upon  the  fourth  and 
fifth  points,  is  something  more  than  inconsistency  ;  something  more 


93 

even  than  self-contradiction.  The  whole  letter  is  a  laborious  tis 
sue  of  misrepresentation  of  every  part  of  its  subject ;  of  the  con 
duct  and  sentiments  of  his  colleagues  who  constituted  the  majority 
of  the  mission  ;  and  of  his  own  conduct  and  sentiments  in  opposi 
tion  to  them.  It  substantially  charges  them  with  deliberate  and 
wanton  violation,  in  the  face  of  his  solemn  warning,  of  the  positive 
and  unequivocal  instructions  of  their  government,  for  the  sake  of 
sacrificing  tiie  interest,  the  peace,  the  comfortable  existence  of  the 
whole  western  country,  to  the  doubtful  accommodation  of  a  few 
eastern  fishermen,  and  in  support  of  a  claim  to  which  they  had  not 
the  shadow  of  a  right. 

1  say  it  is  a  tissue  of  misrepresentations — of  the  subject,  of  the 
conduct  and  sentiments  of  his  colleagues,  and  of  his  own  conduct 
in  opposition  to  them. 

1.  Of  the  subject.  Mr.  Russell  represents  the  offer  of  an  article, 
granting  to  the  British  the  right  of  navigating  the  Mississippi,  as  an 
equivalent  for  the  grant  of  a  fishing  privilege  in  British  jurisdic 
tion,  as  if  it  had  been  a  separate  and  insulated  proposal  of  new 
grants,  in  a  distinct  article,  without  reference  to  the  state  of  the  ne 
gotiation  at  the  time  when  it  was  made,  to  the  occasion  upon  which 
it  was  made,  and  to  the  considerations  by  which  it  was  induced. 

Mr.  Russell  represents  the  article  as  if  offered  under  circum 
stances,  when  it  was,  by  both  parties,  acknowledged  that  the  British 
had  no  claim  to  territory,  to  the  Mississippi.  This  is  a  direct  and 
positive  perversion  of  the  whole  statement  of  the  subject. 

Mr.  Russell  represents  the  offer  of  a  right  to  navigate  the  Mis 
sissippi,  and  of  access  to  it  from  the  British  territories  as  general 
and  unqualified  ;  as  giving  access  to  British  traders  and  British  em 
issaries  to  every  part  of  the  western  country,  and  to  intercourse 
with  all  our  Indians.  The  proposal  was,  of  a  limited  access  from 
a  single  spot  of  the  British  territory,  to  the  river,  for  the  purpose 
of  navigating  the  river  with  merchandise,  upon  which  the  duties 
of  import  should  have  been  first  paid. 

In  consequence  of  these  misrepresentations,  Mr.  Russell  brings  in 
British  smugglers,  British  emissaries,  and  all  the  horrors  of  Indian 
warfare,  upon  the  western  country,  as  necessary  inferences  from  a 
proposal,  not  that  which  was  made,  but  that  into  which  it  is  dis 
torted  by  his  misrepresentations. 

2.  Of  the  conduct  and  sentiments  of  his  colleagues. 

Mr.  Russell  represents  his  colleagues  as  having  deliberately, 
and  against  his  declared  opinion,  violated  both  the  letter  and  the 
spirit  of  their  most  explicit  and  implicit,  express  and  unequivocal, 
instructions  from  their  own  government.  He  charges  them,  also, 
with  having  violated  their  own  construction  of  their  instructions. 

It  is  true  that,  in  another  reading  of  the  same  letter,  purporting 
to  have  been  written  on  the  same  day,  he  acquits  them  entirely  of 
all  violation  of  their  instructions,  and  declares  he  had  always  beea 
of  that  opinion. 

12 


94 

Mr.  Russell  ascribes  to  his  colleagues  opinions  which  they  never 
entertained,  arguments  which  they  never  advanced,  and  doctrines 
which  they  not  only  would  disclaim  with  indignation,  but  diametri 
cally  opposite  to  those  which  they  did  maintain.  He  imputes  to 
them  the  opinion  that  the  Independence  of  the  United  Stares  was 
derived  only  from  the  treaty  of  peace  of  1783,  and  that  all  the 
rights  stipulated  by  it,  in  favour  of  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
were  mere  grants  from  the  crown  of  England.  This  was  the 
British  doctrine,  whirh  Mr.  Russell  well  knew  his  colleagues  re 
jected  with  disdain,  but  which  he  himself  countenances  by  main 
taining  the  British  side  of  (he  argument,  that  the  fishing  liberty, 
stipulated  in  the  treaty  of  1783,  was  abrogated  ipso  facto  by  the 
war  of  1812. 

He  imputes  to  them,  as  an  inconsistency  with  their  other  imput 
ed  opinion,  that  they  rested  their  claim  to  the  fishing  privilege, 
upon  prescription;  and  this  notwithstanding  all  the  light  of  learn 
ing  with  which  he  had  irradiated  them,  from  the  lucid  sources  of 
"jus  mer&facuUatis  ;"  of"  ultra  memoriam  hominis  ;"  of  "  nullum 
tempus  occur ril  rcgi ;"  and  of  the  imprescriptible  character  of  fish 
eries.  Of  all  this  not  one  word  was  said  at  Ghent.  The  majori 
ty  never  asserted  the  right  of  the  fishing  privilege,  as  resting  upon 
the  right  of  prescription  ;  nor  had  they  ever  the  benefit  of  Mr. 
Russell's  learned  labours  to  prove  that  it  was  not  applicable  to  the 
subject. 

3.  Of  his  own  conduct  and  sentiments,  in  opposition  to  those  of 
the  majority  of  his  colleagues. 

The  parallel  passages  from  the  original  and  duplicate  of  his  let 
ter  remove  all  necessity  for  further  proof  of  this.  But  that  is  not 
all.  Throughout  the  letter,  Mr.  Russell  holds  himself  forth  as 
having  been  the  intrepid  and  inflexible  asserter  and  supporter  of 
the  rights  of  the  West,  against  the  majority  of  his  colleagues  ;  as 
having,  by  a  painful  struggle,  obtained  a  conquest  over  his  early 
prejudices  and  local  partialities,  and  enlarged  his  intellectual  facul 
ties  and  patriotism,  to  become  the  champion  and  vindicator  of  the 
interests  of  the  West.  Of  all  this,  nothing  was  made  known  to  his 
colleagues  of  the  majority  at  Ghent.  The  article  to  which  his 
letter  conjures  up  such  formidable  objections  was  drawn  up  and 
proposed  10  the  mission  by  a  distinguished  citizen  of  the  western 
country.  It  was  opposed  by  another  citizen  from  the  same  section, 
of  the  Union  Of  the  five  members  of  the  mission  Mr.  Russell 
was  the  person  who  took  the  least  part  in  the  discussion.  He  nei 
ther  objected  that  it  was  contrary  to  our  instructions,  nor  depre 
ciated  the  value  of  the  fisheries  ;  nor  painted  the  dangers  of  British 
smugglers  and  emissaries,  or  the  horrors  of  Indian  warfare,  as  im 
pending  over  the  unoffending  inhabitants  of  the  western  country 
from  the  measure.  He  gave,  it  may  be,  a  silent  vote  against  pro 
posing  the  article  ;  and,  when  it  was  determined  by  the  majority 
to  propose  it,  concurred  in  proposing  it ;  was  present  at  the  con 
ferences  with  the  British  plenipotentiaries  when  it  was  proposed 


95 

Cft  and  discussed  with  them,  and  heard  from  thorn  the  reasons  which 
induced  them  to  reject  it,  which  reasons  did  not  embrace  one  of" 
those  which  he  has  so  severely  tasked  his  sagacity  to  devise  for 
them  ;  hut,  plainly  and  simply,  because  they  said  it  was  clogged 
with  conditions  which  made  it  of  no  value  to  them,  or,  at  least,  not 
of  value  to  induce  them  to  concede  that  our  fishing  liberties,  within 
British  jurisdiction,  should  continue,  in  return  :  and  he  afterwards 
signed  a  letter  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  together  with  all  the 
other  members  of  the  mission,  declaring  that  they  had  no  objection 
to  the  article,  considering  it  as  merely  declaratory. 

If  Mr.  Russell  had  entertained  at  Ghent  the  sentiments  relating 
to  this  measure,  disclosed  in  the  duplicate,  or  even  those  avowed 
in  the  original  of  his  letter,  he  is  to  account  for  it  to  his  conscience 
and  his  country,  that  he  ever  assented  to  it  at  all.  He  was  not 
under  the  slightest  obligation  to  assent  to  it.  As  an  act  of  the  ma 
jority,  it  would  have  been  equally  valid  without  his  concurrence 
or  signature  as  with  it.  More  than  one  member  of  the  mission, 
and  on  more  than  one  occasion,  signified  his  determination  to  de 
cline  signing  the  treaty,  if  particular  measures,  proposed  by  the 
British  plenipotentiaries,  should  be  acceded  to  by  the  majority.  A 
refusal  by  any  one  member  to  concur  in  any  measure  upon  which 
a  majority  were  agreed,  would  at  least  have  induced  the  majority 
to  re-consider  their  vote,  and  in  all  probability  to  have  cancelled  it. 
la  a  case  of  such  transcendent  importance  as  this,  of  high  interests, 
generous  policy,  humane  and  tender  sympathies,  wantonly  to  be 
sacrificed,  in  defiance  of  the  most  express  and  unqualified  instruc 
tions,  to  the  paltry  purpose  of  accommodating  a  few  fishermen,  des 
titute  of  all  claim  of  right,  how  could  Mr.  Russell  sit  patiently  in 
conference  with  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  and  join  in  the  offer 
of  it  to  them  ?  How  could  he  subscribe  his  name  to  a  letter  declar 
ing  he  had  no  objection  to  it  ?  Had  Mr.  Russell  dissented  from  this 
measure  of  the  majority,  and  they  had  still  persisted  in  it,  he  would 
doubtless  have  reported  to  his  own  government  the  reasons  of  his 
dissent ;  his  colleagues  of  the  majority  would  in  like  manner  have 
reported  theirs  ;  and  the  responsibility  of  each  party  would  have 
rested,  as  it  ought,  upon  their  respective  acts.  To  concur  individu 
ally  in  the  measure  ;  to  sign  all  the  papers  approving  it;  and  then 
secretly  to  write  to  the  government  a  letter  of  censure,  reproach, 
and  misrepresentation,  against  it  and  those  who  proposed  it — was, 
indeed,  a  shorter  and  easier  process. 

Mr.  Russell,  therefore,  did  not  entertain  or  express  at  Ghent, 
the  opinions  disclosed  in  hi*  letter  from  Paris,  and  has  been  as  un 
fortunate  in  the  representation  of  his  own  conduct  and  sentiments, 
as  in  that  of  the  subject  of  his  letter,  and  in  that  of  the  sentiments 
and  conduct  of  his  colleagues. 

But  there  is  a  point  of  view  more  important  than  any  regard  to 
his  conduct  and  sentiments,  in  which  his  letter  is  yet  to  be  consi° 
dered.  If  there  were  any  force  in  his  argument  against  the  mca- 


96 

Sures,  or  any  correctness  in  his  statements  against  his  colleagues* 
it  is  proper  they  should  be  sifted  and  examined. 

Let,  us,  therefore,  examine  the  proposed  article  in  both  its 
parts  : — first,  as  relates  to  the  fishing  liberty  for  us  ;  and  secondly, 
to  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  by  the  British  And,  in  order 
to  ascertain  the  propriety  of  the  principles  assumed,  and  of  the 
measures  adopted  by  the  American  commissioners,  as  now  in 
question,  let  us  premise  the  state  of  things  as  they  existed,  and  the 
circumstances  under  which  this  proposal  was  offered. 

By  the  third  article  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  it  was  agreed,  that  the 
people  of  the  United  States  should  continue  to  enjoy  the  fisheries 
of  Newfoundland  and  the  Bay  of  St.  Lawrence,  and  at  all  other 
places  in  the  sea,  where  the  inhabitants  of  both  countries  used  at 
any  time  theretofore  to  fish ;  and,  also,  that  they  should  have  certain 
fishing  liberties,  on  all  the  fishing  coast  within  the  British  jurisdic 
tion  of  Nova  Scotia,  Magdalen  Islands,  and  Labrador.  The  title 
by  which  the  United  States  held  those  fishing  rights  and  liberties 
was  the  same.  It  was  the  possessory  use  of  the  right,  or,  in  Mr. 
Russell's  more  learned  phrase,  of  the  "  jus  meroz  facultatis  "  at 
any  time  theretofore  as  British  subjects,  and  the  acknowledgment 
by  Great  Britain  of  its  continuance  in  the  people  of  the  United 
States  after  the  treaty  of  separation.  It  was  a  national  right ;  and, 
therefore,  as  much  a  right,  though  not  so  immediate  an  interest,  to 
the  people  of  Ohio  and  Kentucky,  aye  and  to  the  people  of  Loui 
siana,  after  they  became  a  part  of  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
as  it  was  to  the  people  of  Massachusetts  and  Maine.  The  latter 
had  always  used  it,  since  they  had  been  British  colonists,  and  the 
coasts  had  been  in  British  dominions.  But,  as  the  settlement  of  the 
colonies  themselves  had  not  been  of  time  immemorial,  it  was  not, 
and  never  was  pretended  to  be,  a  title  by  prescription. 

Such  was  the  title  of  the  United  States  to  the  fisheries — prior 
possession,  and  acknowledgment  by  the  treaty  of  1783. 

The  commissioners  at  Ghent  had  received  from  the  Secretary  of 
State  a  letter  of  instruction,  dated  25th  of  June,  1814,  containing 
the  following  passage : 

"  Information  has  been  received  from  a  quarter  deserving  of  at- 
"  tention,  that  the  late  events  in  France  have  produced  such  an 
"  effect  on  the  British  government,  as  to  make  it  probable  that  a 
"  demand  will  be  made  at  Gothenburg,  to  surrender  our  right  to  the 
" fisheries,  to  abandon  all  trade  beyond  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope, 
"  and  to  cede  Louisiana  to  Spain.  We  cannot  believe  that  such  a 
"  demand  will  be  made  ;  should  it  be,  you  will  of  course,  treat  it 
"  as  it  deserves.  These  rights  must  not  be  brought  into  discussion. 
"  If  insisted  on,  your  negotiations  will  cease." 

Now,  it  is  very  true  that  a  majority  of  the  commissioners  did 
construe  these  instructions  to  mean,  that  the  right  to  the  fisheries 
was  not  to  be  surrendered.  They  did  not  subtilize,  and  refine,  and 
inquire,  whether  they  could  not  surrender  a  part,  and  yet  not  bring 
the  right  into  discussion,  whether  we  might  not  give  up  a  liberty. 


97 

and  yet  retain  a  right ;  or  whether  it  was  an  argument,  or  an  agree 
ment,  that  was  forbidden.  They  understood,  that  the  fisheries  were 
not  to  be  surrendered. 

The  demand  made  by  the  British  government  was  first  advanced 
in  an  artful  and  ensnaring  form.  It  was  by  assuming  the  principle 
4hat  the  right  had  been  forfeited  hy  the  war,  and  by  notifying  the 
American  commissioners,  as  they  did  at  the  first  conference,  "  that 
the  British  government  did  not  intend  to  grant  to  the  United 
States,  gratuitously,  the  privileges  formerly  granted  hy  treaty  to 
them,  of  fishing  within  the  limits  of  the  British  sovereignty,  and 
of  using  the  shores  of  the  British  territories  for  purposes  con 
nected  with  the  fisheries."  Now  to  obtain  the  surrender  of  thus 
much  of  the  fisheries,  all  that  the  British  plenipotentiaries  could 
possibly  desire,  was,  that  the  American  commissioners  should  ac 
quiesce  in  the  principle,  that  the  treaty  of  1783  was  abrogated  by 
the  war.  Assent  to  this  principle  would  have  been  surrender  of 
the  right.  Mr.  Kussell,  if  we  can  make  any  thing  of  his  argument, 
would  have  assented,  and  surrendered,  and  comforted  himself  with 
the  reflection,  that,  as  the  right  had  not  been  brought  into  discus 
sion,  the  instructions  would  not  have  been  violated. 

But,  however  clearly  he  expresses  this  opinion  in  his  letter,  and 
however  painfully  he  endeavours  to  fortify  it  by  argument,  he  ne 
ver  did  disclose  it  to  the  same  extent  at  Ghent.  The  only  way  in 
which  it  was  possible  to  meet  the  notification  of  the  British  pleni 
potentiaries,  without  surrendering  the  rights  which  it  jeopardized, 
was  by  denying  the  principle  upon  which  it  was  founded.  This 
was  done  by  asserting  the  principle,  that  the  treaty  of  Independ 
ence  of  1783  was  of  that  class  of  treaties,  and  the  right  in  question 
of  the  character,  which  are  not  abrogated  by  a  subsequent  war  ; 
that  the  notification  of  the  intention  of  the  British  government  not 
to  renew  the  grant,  could  not  affect  the  right  of  the  United  States, 
which  had  not  been  forfeited  by  the  war  ;  and  that,  considering  it 
as  still  in  force,  the  United  States  needed  no  new  grant  from  Great 
Britain  to  revive,  nor  any  new  article  to  confirm  it. 

This  principle  I  willingly  admit  was  assumed  and  advanced  by 
the  American  commissioners  at  my  suggestion.  I  believed  it  not 
only  indispensably  necessary  to  meet  the  insidious  form  in  which 
the  British  demand  of  surrender  had  been  put  forth  ;  but  sound  in 
itself,  and  maintainable  on  the  most  enlarged,  humane,  and  gener 
ous  principles  of  international  law.  It  was  asserted  and  maintained 
by  the  American  plenipotentiaries  at  Ghent  ;  and  if,  in  the  judg 
ment  of  Mr.  Russell,  it  suffered  the  fishing  liberty  to  be  brought 
into  discussion,  at  least  it  did  not  surrender  the  right. 

It  was  not  acceded  to  by  the  British  plenipotentiaries.  Each 
party  adhered  to  its  asserted  principle  ;  and  the  treaty  was  conclud 
ed  without  settling  the  interest  involved  in  it.  Since  that  time, 
and  after  the  original  of  Mr.  Russell's  letter  of  the  1 1th  February, 
"1815,  was  written,  the  principle  asserted  by  the  American  pleni 
potentiaries  at  Ghent,  has  been  still  asserted  and  maintained  through 
two  long  and  arduous  negotiations  with  Great  Britain,  and  has  passed 


•93 

the  ordeal  of  minds  of  no  inferior  ability.  It  lias  terminated  in  a 
new  and  satisfactory  arrangement  of  the  great  interest  connected 
with  it,  and  in  a  substantial  admission  of  the  principle  asserted  by 
the  American  plenipotentiaries  at  Ghent;  by  that  convention  of 
20th  October,  1818,  which,  according  to  the  duplicate  of  Mr.  Rus 
sell's  letter,  he  foresaw  in  February,  1815,  even  while  writing  his 
learned  dissertation  against  the  right  which  he  had  been  instructed 
not  to  surrender,  and  the  only  principle  by  which  it  could  be  de 
fended. 

At  this  time,  and  after  all  the  controversy  through  which  the 
American  principle  was  destined  to  pass,  and  has  passed,  I,  with 
out  hesitation,  reassert,  in  the  face  of  my  country,  the  principle, 
which,  in  defence  of  the  fishing  liberties  of  this  nation,  wasf  at  my 
suggestion,  asserted  by  the  American  plenipotentiaries  at  Ghent. 

1  deem  this  reassertion  of  it  the  more  important,  because,  by  the 
publication  at  this  time  of  Mr.  Russell's  letter,  that  plenipotentiary 
has  not  only  disclaimed  all  his  share  in  the  first  assertion  of  it,  but 
has  brought  to  bear  all  the  faculties  of  his  mind  against  it,  while  the 
American  side  of  the  argument,  and  the  reasons  by  which  it  has 
been  supported  against  arguments  coinciding  much  with  those  of 
his  letter,  but  advanced  by  British  reasoners,  are  not  before  the 
public.  The  principle  is  yet  important  to  great  interests,  and  to 
the  future  welfare  of  this  country. 

When  first  suggested,  it  obtained  the  unanimous  assent  of  the 
American  mission.  In  their  note  of  10th  November,  1814.  to  the 
British  plenipotentiaries,  which  accompanied  their  first  projet  of  a 
treaty,  they  said,  "  in  answer  to  the  declaration  made  by  the  Bri 
tish  plenipotentiaries  respecting  the  fisheries,. the  undersigned, 
"  referring  to  what  passed  in  the  conference  of  the  9th  August,  can 
"  only  state,  that  they  are  not  authorized  to  bring  into  discussion 
"  any  of  the  rights  or  liberties  which  the  United  States  have  here- 
**  tofore  enjoyed  in  relation  thereto.  From  their  nature,  and  from 
"  the  peculiar  character  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  by  which  they  were 
<c  recognised,  no  further  stipulation  has  been  deemed  necessary  by 
"  the  government  of  the  United  States,  te  entitle  them  to  the  full 
<;  enjoyment  of  all  of  them."  This  paragraph  was  drawn  up,  and 
proposed  to  the  mission  by  the  member  with  whom  Mr.  Russell 
concurred  in  objecting  to  the  proposal  of  an  article  confirmative  of 
the  fishing  liberties  and  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  and  as  a  sub 
stitute  for  it.  The  mission  unanimously  accepted  it  :  and  the  fish 
ing  liberties  being  thus  secured  from  surrender,  no  article  relating 
to  them  or  to  the  Mississippi  was  inserted  in  the  projet  sent  to  the 
British  mission. 

But  one  of  the  objects  of  the  negotiation  was  to  settle  the  bound 
ary  befcveen  the  United  States  and  the  British  dominions,  from  the 
northwest  corner  of  the  Lake  of  the  Woods  westward.  That 
boundary,  by  the  treaty  of  1783,  had  been  stipulated  to  be,  "  from 
*'  the  most  northwestern  point  of  the  Lake  of  the  Woods  on  a  due 
"  west  course  to  the  river  Mississippi  j  and  thence,  down  the  mid- 


99 

die  of  the  Mississippi,  to  the  thirty-first  degree  of  north  latitude  ;" 
while,  by  the  eighth  article  of  the  same  treaty,  it  had  been  stipulat 
ed,  that  "  the  navigation  of  the  river  Mississippi,  from  its  source  to 
**  the  ocean,  should  forever  remain  free  and  open  to  the  subjects  oi' 
*'  Great  Britain  and  the  citizens  of  the  United  States." 

The  right  of  Great  Britain  and  of  the  United  States,  at  the  time 
of  the  treaty  of  1783,  to  make  this  stipulation  with  regard  to  the 
navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  might  be,  and  afterwards  was,  ques 
tioned  by  Spain,  then  a  possessor  also  of  territories  upon  the  same 
river,  and  indeed  of  both  its  banks,  trom  its  mouth  to  a  hiyher  la 
titude  than  that  thus  stipulated  as  the  boundary  of  the  United 
States.  But,  as,  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States, 
there  could,  at  the  time  of  the  conclusion  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  be 
no  possible  question  of  the  right  of  both  to  make  the  stipulation, 
the  boundary  line  itself  being  in  substance  a  concession  of  territory 
to  the  river,  and  down  its  middle  to  latitude  31,  which  Great  Britain 
was  undoubtedly  competent  to  make,  and  the  United  States  to  re 
ceive.  Now,  the  United  States  having  received  the  cession  and  the 
boundary,  with  the  right  to  navigate  the  river,  with  the  express 
condition  that  the  navigation  of  the  river  should  forever  remain 
free  and  open  to  British  subjects,  and  having  expressly  assented 
to  that  condition,  without  considering  it  as  infringing  upon  any  right 
of  Spain  ;  they  could  not,  consistently  with  good  faith,  by  acquiring 
afterwards  the  right  of  Spain,  allege  that  this  acquisition  absolved 
them  from  the  obligation  of  the  prior  engagement  with  Great  Bri 
tain.  There  is,  indeed^  in  Mr  Russell's  letter,  a  hesitating  argu 
ment  to  that  effect ;  the  odious  character  of  which  is  but  flimsily 
veiled  by  its  subtlety.  The  United  States  had  always  insisted  upon 
their  right  of  navigating  the  Mississippi,  by  force\of  the  article  of 
the  treaty  of  1783,  and  had  obtained  the  acknowledgment  of  that 
right  from  Spain  herself,  many  years  before  they  acquired  her  ter 
ritorial  right  by  the  purchase  of  Louisiana.  With  what  front,  then, 
could  an  American  negotiator  have  said,  after  the  latter  period,  to 
a  British  minister  : — You  have  no  right  to  the  navigation  of  the 
Mississippi  ;  for  although,  on  receiving  from  you  a  part  of  the  river, 
we  expressly  stipulated  that  you  should  forever  enjoy  a  right  to  its 
navigation,  yet  that  engagement  was  a  fraud  upon  the  rights  of 
Spain  ;  and  although,  long  before  we  had  acquired  these  rights  of 
Spain,  she  had  acknowledged  our  right  to  navigate  the  rive.,  found 
ed  upon  this  very  stipulation  of  which  you  now  claim  the  benefit, 
yet  I  will  now  not  acknowledge  your  right  founded  on  the  s«ine 
stipulation.  Spain,  no  party  to  the  compact  between  you  and  i.-u;, 
after  controverting  it  as  infringing  upon  her  rights,  anally  acceded 
to  its  beneficial  application  to  us,  as  compatible  with  thojs  rlgiits. 
But  we,  who  made  the  compact  with  you,  having  now  acquired  i'bie 
adverse  rights  of  Spain,  will  not  allow  you  the  bei  .%nc  ':»i  u  •  of  our 
own  compact.  We  first  swindled  and  then  bullied  Sp;;m  AC,  of  .ur 
rights,  by  this  eighth  article  of  the  treaty  of  1  *&':>  ;  i^  j  now,  hav 
ing  acquired  ourselves  those  rights,  ive  plead  them  for  holding  our 
engagement  with  you  for  a  dead  letter. 


100 

This,  and  nothing  more  or  less  than  this,  is  the  substance  of  Mr 
Russell's  argument  to  show,  that  perhaps  the  United  States  were, 
by  the  acquisition  of  Louisiana,  absolved  from  the  obligation  of  the 
eighth  article  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  even  before  the  war  of  1812. 

But,  says  Mr.  Russell,  the  treaty  of  1783  was  made,  under  a  be 
lief  of  both  parties,  that  it  would  leave  Great  Britain  with  a  portion 
of  territory  upon  the  Mississippi,  and  therefore  entitled  to  claim  the 
right  of  navigating  the  river.  But  the  boundary  line  of  the  treaty 
of  1783,  was  a  line  from  the  northwesternmost  point  of  the  Lake  of 
the  Woods,  due  west  to  the  Mississippi.  And  after  the  treaty  of 
1783,  but  before  the  war  of  1812,  it  had  been  found  that  a  line  due 
west,  from  the  northwest  corner  of  the  Lake  of  the  Woods,  did  not 
strike  the  Mississippi.  Therefore,  continues  Mr.  Russell,  Great 
Britain  could  claim  no  territorial  right  to  the  navigation  of  the  ri 
ver  ;  and  therefore  had  no  longer  any  claim  to  the  benefit  of  the 
eighth  article  of  the  treaty  of  1783. 

To  this  it  may  be  replied  :  First,  that  the  British  claim  of  right 
to  navigate  the  Mississippi,  was  not  founded  solely  on  the  territory 
which  it  was  believed  they  would  retain  upon  that  river,  by  the 
boundary  west  from  the  Lake  of  the  Woods.  The  eighth  article 
of  the  treaty  of  1783,  was  a  separate  and  distinct  article,  stipulat 
ing  the  right  of  both  nations  to  navigate  the  river,  without  any  re 
ference  to  boundary  or  to  territory.  But  the  boundary,  the  ter 
ritory,  and  the  right  to  navigate  the  river,  were  all,  in  that  treaty, 
cessions  from  Great  Britain  to  the  United  States.  And,  had  it  even 
been  the  intention  of  both  parties,  that  Britain  should  cede  thewhole 
of  her  territories  on  the  Mississippi,  it  was  yet  competent  to  her  to 
reserve  the  right  of  navigating  the  river  for  her  subjects,  in  common 
with  the  people  of  the  United  States,  and  competent  for  the  United 
States  to  accept  the  cession,  subject  to  that  reservation.  They  did 
so,  by  the  eighth  article  of  the  treaty.  And  in  this  point  of  view, 
the  British  right  of  navigating  the  river,  within  the  Americnn  ter 
ritory,  was  precisely  similar  to  the  American  liberty  of  fishing 
within  the  British  territorial  jurisdiction,  reserved  by  the  third  ar 
ticle  of  the  same  treaty. 

But,  secondly,  the  discovery  that  a  line  due  west,  from  the  north- 
westernmost  corner  of  the  Lake  of  the  Woods,  would  not  strike 
the  Mississippi,  had  not  deprived  Great  Britain  of  all  claim  to  terri 
tory  upon  that  river,  at  the  time  of  the  negotiation  at  Ghent.  The 
line  described  in  the  treaty  was,  from  the  northwesternmost  point 
of  the  Lake  of  the  Woods,  "  on  a  due  west  course  to  the  river  Mis 
sissippi."  When  it  was  found  that  the  line  due  west  did  not  touch 
the  Mississippi,  this  boundary  was  annulled  by  the  fact.  It  re 
mained  an  unsettled  boundary,  to  be  adjusted  bv  a  new  agreement. 
For  this  adjustment,  the  moral  obligation  of  the  parties  was  to  adopt 
such  aline  as  should  approximate  as  near  as  possible  to  the  inten 
tions  of  both  parties  in  agreeing  upon  the  line  for  which  it  was  to 
be  substituted.  For  ascertaining  this  line,  if  the  United  States 
were  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  the  words  "  on  a  due  west  course.'- 


101 

'Britain  was  equally  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  the  Words  "  to  the  ri 
ver  Mississippi."  Both  the  demands  stood  on  the  same  grounds. 
Before  the  war  of  1812,  three  abortive  attempts  had  been  made  by 
the  parties  to  adjust  this  boundary.  The  first  was  by  the  treaty  of 
1794,  when  it  was  already  conjectured,  but  not  ascertained,  that 
the  line  due  west  from  the  lake  would  not  intersect  the  Mississippi. 
By  the  fourth  article  of  the  treaty  of  1794,  it  was  agreed  that  a  joint 
survey  should  be  made  to  ascertain  the  fact ;  and  that,  if,  on  the 
result  of  that  survey,  it  should  appear,  that  the  west  line  would  not 
intersect  the  river,  the  parties  would  proceed,  "  by  amicable  nego- 
"  tiation,  to  regulate  the  boundary  line  in  that  quarter,  according  to 
"justice  and  mutual  convenience,  and  in  conformity  to  the  intent 
*'  of  the  treaty  of  1783."  This  survey  was  never  made.  The 
second  attempt  to  adjust  the  line,  was  by  the  convention  signed  on 
the  12th  of  May,  1803,  by  Mr.  King  and  lord  Hawkesbury  ;  the 
fifth  article  of  which,  after  reciting  the  same  uncertainty,  whether 
a  line  drawn  due  west  from  the  Lake  of  the  Woods  would  intersect 
the  Mississippi,  provided  that,  instead  of  the  said  line,  the  bounda 
ry  of  the  United  States,  in  that  quarter,  should,  and  was  declared 
to  be,  the  shortest  line  "xhich  could  be  drawn  between  tJie  northwest 
point  of  the  Lake  of  the  Woods,  and  ihe  nearest  source  of  the  river  Mis 
sissippi.  This  convention  uot  having  been  ratified,  the  third  at 
tempt  at  adjustment  had  been  made  in  the  negotiation  of  Mr.  Monroe 
and  Mr.  Pinkney,  of  180G  and  1G07  ;  at  which  an  article  had  been, 
proposed  and  agreed  to,  that  the  line  should  be  from  the  most 
northwestern  point  of.tho.  Lake  of  the  Woods,  to  the  49th  parallel 
of  latitude,  and  from  that  point,  due  west,  along  and  with  the  said 
parallel,  as  far  as  the  respective  territories  extend  in  that  quarter. 
And  with  that  article  was  coupled  another,  as  follows  : 

*'  It  is  agreed  by  the  United  States  that  his  majesty's  subjects 
•'  shall  have,  at  all  times,  free  access  from  his  majesty's  aforesaid 
"  territories,  by  land  or  inland  navigation,  into  the  aforesaid  terri- 
*'  tories  of  the  United  States,  to  the  river  Mississippi,  with  the 
ct  goods  and  effects  of  his  majesty's  said  subjects,  in  order  to  enjoy 
"  the  benefit  of  the  navigation  of  that  river,  as  it-cured  to  them  by 
"  the  treaty  of  peace,  between  his  majesty  and  the  United  States, 
•"  and  also  by  the  third  article  of  the  treaty  of  amity,  commerce, 
*'  and  navigation,  of  1794.  And  it  is  further  agreed  that  his  ma- 
"  jcsty's  subjects  shall,  in  like  manner,  and  at  all  times,  have  free 
"  access  to  all  the  waters  and  rivers  falling  into  the  western  side  of 
*"•  the  river  Mississippi,  and  to  the  navigation  of  the  said  river." 

This  negotiation  was  suspended,  by  a  change  of  the  British  mi 
nistry,  and  was  not  afterwards  resumed.  But  Ihe  following  obser 
vations  upon  the  two  articles,  contained  in  a  letter  from  Mr.  Madi 
son  to  Messrs.  Monroe  and  Pinkney,  of  30th  July,  1807,  show  how 
far  Mr.  Jefferson,  then  President  of  the  United  States,  had  author 
ized  those  commissioners  to  accede  to  them. 

"  Access  by  land  or  inland  navigation  from  the  British  territo- 
"  ries,  through  the  territory  of  the  United  States  to  the  river  Mis- 

13 


102 

^  feFssippi,  is  rtot  lo  be  allowed  to  British  subjects,  with  theif  goods 
'*  or  effects,  unless  such  articles  shall  have  paid  all  the  duties,  and 
"  be  within  all  the  custom-house  regulations,  applicable  to  goods 
e<  and  effects  of  citizens  of  the  United  States.  An  access  through 
"  the  territory  of  the  United  States  to  the  waters  running  into  the 
"  western  side  of  the  Mississippi,  is  under  no  modification  whatev- 
"  er  to  be  stipulated  to  British  subjects." 

Such  then  was  the  state  of  things  in  relation  to  this  interest  in 
question,  at  the  time  when  the  war  of  1812  broke  out  ;  and  at  the 
negotiation  of  Ghent,  the  same  question  of  boundary  again  occurred 
for  adjustment.  The  right  of  the  British  to  a  line  from  the  Lake 
of  the  Woods  to  the  Mississippi,  had  never  been  renounced  :  and, 
at  the  last  negotiation  between  the  parties,  four  years  after  the 
United  States  had  acquired  Louisiana,  and  with  it  all  the  Spanish 
fights  upon  the  Mississippi,  the  British  government,  in  assenting 
fo  take  the  49th  parallel  of  latitude,  as  a  substitute  for  the  line  lo 
the  Mississippi,  had  expressly  re-stipulated  for  the  free  navigation 
of  the  river,  and  free  access  to  it  from  our  territories  ;  to  both  of 
which  Messrs.  Monroe  and  Pinkney  had  been  explicitly  authorized 
lo  accede. 

Under  this  state  of  things,  it  had  never  been  admitted  by  the  Bri 
tish,  nor  could  we  maintain  against  them  by  argument,  even  that 
the  Mississippi  river  was  within  our  exclusive  jurisdiction  :  for  so 
long  as  they  had  a  right  by  treaty  to  a  line  of  boundary  to  that  ri 
ver,  and  consequently  to  territory  upon  it,  they  also  had  jurisdic 
tion  upon  it ;  nor,  consequently,  could  the  instructions  of  15th 
April,  1813,  had  they  even  been  still  in  full  force,  have  restricted 
the  American  commissioners  from  making  or  receiving  a  proposi 
tion,  for  continuing  to  the  British  the  right  of  navigating  the  river, 
which  they  had  enjoyed,  without  ever  using  it,  from  the  time  oi* 
fhe  treaty  of  1783,  when  the  United  States  had  received,  by  cession 
from  them,  the  right  of  enjoying  it  jointly  with  them. 

Bearing  in  mind  this  state  of  things,  we  are  also  to  remember, 
that,  in  the  conference  of  19th  August,  1814,  and  in  the  letter  of 
that  date,  from  thP  British  to  the  American  plenipotentiaries,  (Sc& 
Waifs  State  Papers,  vol.  IX.  pp.  334  and  338,)  they  had  claimed  a 
new  northwestern  boundary  line  from  Lake  Superior  to  the  Missis 
sippi,  and  the  free  navigation  of  that  river.  To  this  the  American 
commissioners  had  answered  on  the  24th  of  August,  1814:  The 
undersigned  perceive  that  the  British  government  "  propose,  with- 
"  out  purpose  specifically  alleged,  to  draw  the  boundary  line  west- 
'*  ward,  not  from  the  Lake  of  the  Woods,  as  it  now  is,  but  from 
"  Lake  Superior:"  and  they  objected  to  it,  as  demanding  a  cession 
of  territory. 

The  British  plenipotentiaries,  on  the  4th  September,  1814,  re 
plied  : 

"  As  the  necessity  for  fixing  some  boundary  for  the  northwestern 
'*  frontier  has  been  mutually  acknowledged,  a  proposal  for  a  discus- 
"  sion  on  that  subject  cannot  be  considered  as  a  demand  for  a  ce."- 


103 

*•*  sion  of  territory,  unless  the  United  States  are  prepared  to  assert 
f '  that  there  is  no  limit  to  their  territories  in  that  direction,  and  that, 
"  availing  themselves  of  the  geographical  error  upon  which  that 
M  part  of  the  treaty  of  1783  was  founded,  they  will  acknowledge 
"  no  boundary  whatever,  then,  unquestionably,  any  proposition  to 
"  fix  one,  be  it  what  it  may,  must  be  considered  as  demanding  a 
;s  large  cession  of  territory  from  the  United  States. 

"  Is  the  American  government  prepared  to  assert  such  an  unli- 
ik  mited  right,  so  contrary  to  the  evident  intention  of  the  treaty  it- 
;*  self?  Or,  is  his  majesty's  government  to  understand  that  the 
%<  American  plenipotentiaries  are  willing  to  acknowledge  the  bound- 
**  ury  from  the  Lake  of  the  Woods  to  the  Mississippi,  (the  arrange- 
44  ment  made  by  a  convention  in  1803,  but  not  ratified,)  as  that  by 
"  which  their  government  is  ready  to  abide  ? 

"  The  British  plenipotentiaries  are  instructed  to  accept  favour- 
v<  ably  such  a  proposition,  or  to  discuss  any  other  line  of  boundary 
u  which  may  be  submitted  for  consideration." 

I  stop  here  for  a  moment,  to  observe  how  instinctively,  if  the 
expression  may  be  allowed,  both  the  parties  in  this  correspondence 
recur  to  the  treaty  of  1783,  with  a  consciousness  that  it  was  yet  in 
full  force,  as  an  appeal  for  either  in  support  of  its  claims.  The  ex 
pression  in  the  above  American  note,  applied  to  the  boundary,  "  as 
it  now  is;"  the  reference  of  the  British  note  to  the  geographical 
error  in  the  treaty  of  1783,  and  their  willingness  to  discuss  the  ar 
rangement  of  1803,  (the  shortest  line  from  the  Lake  of  the  Woods 
to  the  Mississippi,)  both  acknowledge  the  treaty  of  1783  as  the  basis 
of  all  proposition  and  all  argument,  and  as  being  }et  in  force  for 
every  thing  which  should  not  be  otherwise  provided  for  in  the  new 
treaty. 

In  their  note  of  21st  October,  1814,  the  British  commissioners 
said  : 

"  On  the  subject  of  the  fisheries,  the  undersigned  expressed  with 
•;  so  much  frankness,  at  the  conference  already  referred  to,  th« 
u  views  of  their  government,  that  they  consider  any  further  observ- 
*'  ations  on  that  topic  as  unnecessary  at  the  present  time. 

"  On  the  question  of  the  boundary  between  the  dominions  of  his 
kC  majesty  and  those  of  the  United  States,  the  undersigned  are  led 
t;  to  expect,  from  the  discussion  which  this  subject  has  already  un- 
"  dergone,  that  the  northwestern  boundary,  from  the  Lake  of  the 
"  Woods  to  the  Mississippi,  (the  intended  arrangement  of  1803,) 
"  will  be  admitted  without  objection." 

Thus  stood  the  parties  and  the  subject,  when,  on  the  10th  of 
November,  1814, the  American  plenipotentiaries  sent  the  first  pro- 
jet  of  a  treaty  to.  the  British  commissioners,  it  contained  no  arti 
cle  relating  either  to  the  fisheries  or  to  the  Mississippi  ;  but,  in  the 
note  which  accompanied  it,  to  meet  the  notification  twice  giveu  o;j 
the  part  of  the  British  government,  t,hat  they  did  not  intend  IQ 
grant,  without  equivalent,  the  liberty  of  fishing  within  the  British 
jurisdiction,  the  counter-notification,  already  noticed,  was  intro.rluc- 


104 

eel,  informing  them  that  the  American  government  did  not  consider 
the  fishing  liberties  as  forfeited  by  the  war,  and  that  they  would  re 
main  in  full  force  without  needing  any  new  grant  to  confirm  them. 
At  this  stage  of  the  negotiation,  therefore,  the  American  plenipo 
tentiaries  did  actually  pursue  the  first  of  those  three  other  ways  of 
proceeding,  which  Mr.  Russell,  in  the  postscript  to  the  original  of 
his  letter  of  llth  February,  1815,  says  they  might  have  taken,  and 
to  which  he  adds  that  he  would  have  asserted,  namely,  to  contend 
for  the  continuance  of  the  fishing  privilege,  notwithstanding  the 
war,  without  saying  any  thing  about  the  navigation  of  the  Missis 
sippi.  It  cannot  but  be  surprising  to  find  Mr.  Russell,  within  three 
months  after  these  events,  writing  privately  to  the  Secretary  of 
State,  stating  this  as  a  course  other  than  that  which  we  had  pur 
sued,  and  that  he  would  have  assented  to  it  if  we  had  ;  when  it  was 
the  very  course  that  we  did  pursue,  and  he  had  assented  to  it.  We 
did  contend,  not  for  the  indestructibility,  as  Mr.  Russell  terms  it,  of 
the  treaty  of  1783,  but  that,  from  its  peculiar  character,  it  was  not, 
abrogated  by  the  mere  occurrence  of  war.  We  never  maintained 
that  the  treaty  of  1783  was  indestructible,  or  imperishable,  but  that 
the  rights,  liberties,  and  boundaries,  acknowledged  by  it  as  belong 
ing  to  us,  were  not  abrogated  by  mere  war.  We  never  doubted, 
for  example,  that  we  might  be  compelled  to  stipulate  a  new  bound 
ary  ;  but  that  would  have  been,  not  as  a  consequence  of  mere  war, 
but  the  effect  of  conquest,  resulting  from  war.  The  difference  be 
tween  our  principle  and  that  of  the  British  was,  that  they,  consider 
ing  the  rights  acknowledged  as  belonging  to  us  by  the  treaty,  as 
mere  grants,  held  them  as  annulled  by  war  alone  ;  while  we,  view 
ing  them  as  rights  existing  before  the  treaty,  and  only  acknowledg 
ed  by  it,  could  not  admit  them  to  be  forfeited  without  our  own  as 
sent.  Britain  might  have  recovered  them  by  conquest ;  but  that 
could  not  be  consummated  without  our  acquiescence,  tacit  or  ex 
pressed.  Mr.  Russell,  who  assented  to  our  principle,  and  asserted 
it  with  us,  now  says  he  always  thought  the  British  principle  was  the 
true  one.  If  the  American  mission,  at  that  trying  time,  had  acted 
upon  it,  he  never  would  have  prophesied  the  convention  of  October, 
1813. 

The  eighth  article  of  the  projet  of  a  treaty,  sent  by  the  Ameri 
can  commissioners  on  the  10th  of  November,  offered  the  bounda 
ry  which  had  been  proposed  in  1807,  a  line  north  or  south  to  lati 
tude  49,  and  westward,  on  that  parallel,  as  far  as  the  territories  of 
the  two  countries  extended  ;  and  said  nothing  about  the  Mississip 
pi.  But  when,  on  the  26th  of  November,  the  British  plenipoten 
tiaries  returned  the  projet,  with  their  proposed  amendments,  they 
accepted  the  49th  parallel,  westward,  from  the  Lake  of  the  Woods, 
for  the  boundary,  but  with  the  following  addition  to  the  article  : 
"  And  it  is  further  agreed,  the  subjects  of  his  Britannic  majesty 
*'  shall  at  all  times  have  access,  from  his  Britannic  majesty's  terri- 
*'  tories,  by  land  or  inland  navigation,  into  the  aforesaid  territories 
"  of  the  United  States  to  the  river  Mississippi,  with  their  goods, 


105 

"  effects,  and  merchandise,  and  that  his  Britannic  majesty's  subjeelt 
*'  shall  have  and  enjoy  the  free  navigation  of  the  said  river." 

It  was  to  meet  this  demand  that,  at  the  conference  of  1st  Decem> 
ber,  (he  American  plenipotentiaries  proposed  to  strike  out  all  those 
words,  and  to  substitute  the  amendment  contained  in  the  protocol  of 
that  conference,  already  communicated  to  Congress.  It  was  thus 
that  the  relation  which  Mr.  Russell,  within  three  months  after 
wards,  so  singularly  professes  not  to  perceive  between  the  fishing 
liberties  and  the  Mississippi  navigation,  not  only  naturally  arose, 
but  forced  itself  upon  the  American  plenipotentiaries.  They  had 
saved  the  fishing  liberties  from  surrender,  as  they  had  been  spe 
cially  instructed  to  do,  by  asserting  that  the  treaty  of  1783  had  not 
been  abrogated  ipso  facto  by  the  war.  Two  days  before  receiving 
this  counter  projet,  they  had  received  from  Washington  a  fresh  in 
struction,  expressly  authorizing  them  to  conclude  a  treaty  on  the. 
basis  of  the  status  ante  bellum,  including,  of  course,  the  fishing  lir 
berty  on  one  side,  and  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  on  the  other. 
They  could  not,  therefore,  consistently  with  those  instructions, 
either  reject  thjs  British  demand,  or  abandon  to  surrender  the  fish 
eries.  They  offered,  therefore,  the  amendment  containing  the  re 
newed  acknowledgment  of  both  ;  and  they  said  to  the  British  ple 
nipotentiaries  :  We  have  told  you  that  we  consider  all  the  rights, 
secured  to  us  by  the  treaty  of  1783,  as  still  in  force.  What  we 
demand,  if  you  assent  to  it,  we  must  yield  in  return.  If,  as  we  say, 
the  treaty  of  1783  is  yet  in  force,  you  have  the  right  of  navigating 
the  Mississippi,  and  we  have  the  fishing  rights  and  liberties  unim 
paired.  If,  as  you  say,  the  treaty  is  abrogated,  how  can  you  claim 
the  right  of  navigating  the  Mississippi  ?  You  must  admit  the  one, 
or  not  demand  the  other.  We  offer  you  the  alternative  of  a  new 
stipulated  admission  of  both,  or  a  total  omission  of  both.  We  offer 
you  in  application  the  choice  of  our  principle  or  of  your  own. 

The  British  commissioners  took  the  proposal  for  reference  to 
their  government,  by  whom  it  was  immediately  rejected.  But,  to 
show  how  anxious  they  were  to  obtain  from  us  the  surrender  of  our 
fishing  liberties,  and  how  cheaply  they  valued  the  right  of  navigat 
ing  the  Mississippi,  as  one  of  the  last  expedients  of  negotiation,  they 
offered  us  an  article  agreeing  that,  after  the  peace,  the  parties 
would  further  negotiate  "  respecting  the  terms,  conditions,  and  re- 
"  gulations,  under  which  the  inhabitants  of  the  United  States" 
should  again  enjoy  the  fishing  liberties,  "in  consideration  of  a  fair 
"  equivalent^  to  be  agreed  upon  between  his  majesty  and  the  said 
"  United  States,  and  granted  by  the  said  United  States  for  such  li- 
"  berty  aforesaid  ;"  and  a  reciprocal  stipulation  with  regard  to  the 
British  right  of  navigating  the  Mississippi.  As  the  parties  after  the 
peace  would  have  been  just  as  competent  further  to  negotiate  on 
these  points,  if  so  disposed,  without  this  article  as  with  it,  its  only 
effect  would  have  been  a  mutual  surrender,  on  the  American  side, 
of  the  fishing  liberties,  and  on  the  British  side,  of  the  right  to  navi 
gate  the  Mississippi  ;  with  this  difference,  thnt  we  should  havesur- 


106 

rendered,  in  direct  violation  of  our  instructions,  a  real,  existing, 
practical  liberty,  which,  even  in  the  war  of  our  Independence,  had 
been  deemed  of  the  highest  importance,  and  at  its  close  had  been, 
with  infinite  difficulty,  secured  ;  a  liberty,  of  which  that  portion  of 
the  Union,  whom  it  immediately  concerns,  had  been,  from  the  time 
of  the  treaty  of  1783,  in  the  constant,  real,  and  useful  possession  ; 
while  the  British  would  have  surrendered  absolutely  nothing — a 
l*ight  which,  by  inference  from  their  own  principle,  was  abrogated 
by  the  war  ;  a  right  which,  under  the  treaty  of  1783,  they  had  en 
joyed  for  thirty  years,  without  ever  using  it,  and  which,  in  all  human 
probability,  never  would  have  been  of  more  beneficial  use  to  the 
British  nation,  than  would  be  to  the  people  of  the  United  States  the 
right  of  navigating  the  Bridgewater  canal,  or  the  Danube. 

There  was  certainly  an  inconsistency  on  the  part  of  the  British 
government,  in  claiming  a  right  to  navigate  the  Mississippi,  while 
asserting  that  the  treaty  of  1788  was  abrogated  by  the  war  :  and 
when  pressed  by  us  to  say  on  what  principle  they  claimed  it  without 
offering  for  it  an  equivalent,  they  said  the  equivalent  was,  their  ac 
ceptance  of  the  49th  parallel  of  latitude  for  the  northwestern  boun 
dary,  instead  of  the  line,  to  which  they  were  entitled  by  the  treaty 
of  1783,  to  the  Mississippi.  As  they  gave  up  the  line  to  the  river, 
they  said  they  had  a  right  to  reserve  its  navigation,  and  access  to 
it  for  that  purpose.  They  had  said  the  same  thing  to  Messrs.  Mon 
roe  and  Pinkney  in  1807  ;  and  the  principle  had  been  assented 
to  by  them,  with  the  subsequent  sanction  of  President  Jefferson. 
Still  the  whole  argument  leaned  upon  the  continuing  validity  of  the 
treaty  of  1783  ;  for  the  boundary  line,  as  well  as  the  Mississippi  na 
vigation,  was  null  and  void,  if  that  treaty  was  abrogated.  We  re 
plied  to  them,  that,  although  we  were  willing  to  agree  to  the  49th 
parallel  of  latitude  for  the  boundary,  and  thought  it  of  mutual  in 
terest  that  the  line  should  be  fixed,  we  were  yet  not  tenacious  of 
it ;  we  could  not  agree  to  their  article  of  mutual  surrender,  with  a 
pledge  of  future  negotiation  ;  but  we  would  consent  to  omit  the 
boundary  article  itself,  and  leave  the  whole  subject  for  future  ad 
justment.  And  to  this  they  finally  agreed. 

The  advantage  of  this  to  us  was,  that  we  came  out  of  the  war, 
without  having  surrendered  the  fishing  liberties,  as  they  had  been 
enjoyed  before,  and  stipulated  at  the  treaty  of  1783.  We  were 
still  free  to  maintain,  and  we  did,  after  the  conclusion  of  the  peace, 
effectively  maintain,  the  existence  of  the  right,  notwithstanding  the 
intervening  vvar.  The  British  government  still  insisted  that  the 
treaty  of  1783  was  abrogated  by  the  war  ;  but  when  called  upon  to 
show,  why  then  they  treated  the  United  States  as  an  independent 
nation,  and  why  in  the  treaty  of  Ghent  they  had  agreed  to  four 
several  commissions  to  ascertain  the  boundaries,  "according  to  the 
true  intent  and  meaning  of  that  same  treaty  of  J783,"  they  finally 
answered,  that  they  considered  our  Independence,  and  the  boun 
daries,  as  existing  facts,  like  those  of  other  nations,  without  refer 
ence  to  their  origin.  This  left  nothing  but  a  dispute  about  words  j 


107 

tor  we  applied  the  same  principle  to  the  fishing  liberties  of  the 
third  article,  which  they  conceded  with  regard  to  the  acknowledge 
ment  of  Independence  and  to  the  boundaries.  They  considered 
the  whole  treaty  of  1783  as  a  British  grant.  We  considered  it  as 
a  British  acknowledgement.  They  never  drew  the  nice  distinction, 
attempted  by  Mr.  Russell,  between  a  perishable  and  imperishable 
part  of  the  treaty,  or  admitted  that  it  consisted  of  rights  which  they 
could  not,  and  of  privileges  which  they  could  resume  without  our 
consent.  By  their  principle,  they  might  have  resumed  the  whole  : 
and  when  they  notified  to  us  at  Ghent,  that  they  did  not  intend  to 
".••runt  us  again  the  fishing  liberties  within  their  exclusive  jurisdic 
tion,  but  that  they  meant  to  leave  us  the  right  of  fishing  in  the 
epen  sea,  they  gave  us  distinctly  enough  to  understand  that  they 
were  treating  us  with  magnanimity,  in  not  resuming  the  whole. 
There  was  in  truth  no  difference  in  the  principle.  And  Mr.  Rus 
sell,  in  consulting  his  Vattel,  to  find  that  fishing  rights  were  jura 
wercc  facultatis,  and  therefore  imprescriptible,  ought  to  have  seen 
iv hat  that  writer  very  explicitly  says,  not  that  they  were  rights 
which  could  not  be  acquired  by  long  usage,  but  rights  which  could 
not  be  lost  by  non  user.  lie  ought  also  to  have  seen,  what  Vattel 
no  less  clearly  lays  down,  that  although  a  nation  may  appropriate 
to  itself  a  fishery  upon  its  own  coasts  and  within  its  own  jurisdic 
tion,  yet,  "if  it  has  once  acknowledged  the  common  right  of  other 
••  nations  to  come  and  fish  there,  it  can  no  longer  exclude  them 
**  from  it ;  it  has  left  that  fishery  in  its  primitive  freedom,  at 
tv  least  with  respect  to  those  who  have  been  in  possession  of  it.'* 
And  he  cites  the  herring  fishery  on  the  coast  of  England,  as  being 
common  to  them  with  other  nations,  because  they  had  not  appro 
priated  it  to  themselves,  from  the  beginning. 

In  perusing  the  letter  of  Mr.  Russell,  whether  original  or  da- 
plicate,  I  cannot  but  reflect  with  gratitude  to  Providence  upon  the 
slender  thread  by  which  the  rights  of  this  nation  to  the  fisheries 
were  in  fact  suspended  at  the  negotiation  of  Ghent.  Positive  and 
precise  as  our  instructions  were,  not  to  surrender  them,  if  Mr. 
Russell  had  disclosed  at  Ghent  the  opinions  avowed  in  either  ver 
sion  of  his  letter,  if  he  had  so  broadly  asserted  and  so  pertinacious 
ly  maintained  his  conviction  of  the  utter  worthiesaness  of  the  fish 
eries,  in  comparison  with  the  exclusion  of  the  British  from  a  mere 
phantom  of  right  to  navigate  the  Mississippi,  which  they  had  al 
ways  enjoyed  without  use  ;  without  benefit  to  themselves  or  injury 
to  us  ;  if  he  had  so  learnedly  disserted  to  prove  that  the  treaty  of 
1783  was  totally  and  absolutely  abrogated  by  the  war  ;  if  he  had 
so  thoroughly  inverted  the  real  state  of  the  question,  and  painted 
it  in  such  glowing  colours  as  a  sacrifice  of  deep,  real  interests  of 
the  West  to  a  shallow,  imaginary  interest  ot  the  East ;  if,  with 
that  perseverance  which  is  the  test  of  sincerity,  ne  had  refused  to 
sign  the  proposal  determined  upon  by  the  majority  of  his  colleagues, 
and  •:  /en  them  notice  that  he  should  transmit  to  his  government 
fhe  vindication  of  himself  and  hi«  motives  for  differing  from  thejn  ; 


JOS 

and,  above  all,  it'  another  mind  could  have  been  found  in  the  mis 
sion,  capable  of  concurring  with  him  in  those  views,  it  would  at 
least  have  required  of  the  majority  an  inflexibility  of  fortitude, 
beyond  that  of  any  trial  by  which  they  were  visited,  to  have  per 
severed  in  their  proposal.  Had  they  concurred  with  him  in  his 
opinion  of  the  total  abrogation  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  by  the  mere 
fact  of  the  war,  the  fisheries  in  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  on  the 
coast  of  Labrador,  and  to  an  indefinite  extent  from  the  Island  of 
Newfoundland,  were  lost  to  the  United  States  forever,  or  at  least 
till  the  indignant  energy  of  the  nation  should  have  recovered,  by 
conquest,  the  rights  thus  surrendered  to  usurpation.  In  notifying 
to  us  that  the  British  government  intended  not  to  renew  the  grant 
of  the  fisheries  within  British  jurisdiction,  they  had  not  said  what 
extent  they  meant  to  give  to  these  terms.  They  had  said  they  did 
not  mean  to  extend  it  to  the  right  of  the  fisheries,  generally,  or  in 
the  open  seas,  enjoyed  by  all  other  nations.  (See  Letter  of  the  Ame 
rican  Commissioners  to  the  Secretary  of  Stale  of  12th  August,  1814. 
Waifs  State  Papers,  vol.  9,  p.  321.)  But  there  was  not  wanting  his 
torical  exposition  of  what  Great  Britain  undeistood  by  her  exclu 
sive  jurisdiction  as  applied  to  these  fisheries.  In  the  12th  article 
of  the  treaty  of  Utrecht,  by  which  Nova  Scotia  or  Acadia  had  been 
ceded  by  France  to  Great  Britain,  the  cession  had  been  made  "  in 
"•  such  ample  manner  and  form,  that  the  subjects  of  the  most 
"  Christian  King  shall  hereafter  be  excluded  from  all  kind  of  fish- 
"  ing  in  the  said  seas,  bays,  and  other  places  on  the  coasts  of  Nova 
lk  Scotia  ;  that  is  to  say,  on  those  which  lie  towards  the  east,  within 
*'  THIRTY  LEAGUES,  beginning  from  the  island  commonly  called 
41  Sable,  inclusively,  and  thence  along  towards  the  southwest." 

By  the  thirteenth  article  of  the  same  treaty,  French  subjects 
were  excluded  from  fishing  on  any  other  part  of  the  coast  of  the 
Island  of  Newfoundland,  then  from  Cape  Bonavista  northward,  and 
then  westward  to  Point  Riche.  By  the  fifteenth  article  of  the  treaty 
of  Utrecht,  between  Great  Britain  and  Spain,'  certain  rights  of  fish- 
tng  at  the  Island  of  Newfoundland,  had  been  reserved  to  the  Gui- 
puscoans,  and  other  subjects  of  Spain  ;  but  in  the  eighteenth  article 
of  the  treaty  of  peace  between  Great  Britain  and  Spain,  of  1763, 
his  Catholic  majesty  had  desisted,  "as  well  for  himself  as  lor  his 
successors,  from  nil  pretension  which  he  might  have  formed  in  fa 
vour  of  the  Guipuscoans  and  oilier  his  subjects,  to  the  right  of 
fishing  IN  THE  NEIGHBOURHOOD  of  the  Island  of  Newfoundland.'* 
In  these  several  cases,  it  is  apparent  that  Great  Britain  had  assert 
ed  and  maintained  an  exclusive  and  proprietary  jurisdiction  over 
the  whole  fishing  grounds  of  the  Grand  Bank,  as  well  as  on  the 
coast  of  North  America,  and  in  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence.  Nor 
are  we  without  subsequent  indications  of  what  she  would  have 
considered  as  her  exclusive  jurisdiction,  if  a  majority  of  the  Ame 
rican  commission  at  Ghent  had  been  as  ready  as  Mr.  Russell  de 
clares  himself  to  have  been,  to  subscribe  to  her  doctrine,  that  all 
aur  fishing  liberties  had  lost,  by  the  war,  every  vestige  of  right. 


109 

For,  in  the  summer  of  1815,  the  year  after  the  conclusion  of  the 
peace,  her  armed  vessels  on  the  American  coast  warned  all  Ame 
rican  fishing  vessels  not  to  approach  within  SIXTY  MILES  of  the 
shores. 

It  was  this  incident  which  led  to  the  negotiations  which  termi 
nated  in  the  convention  of  20th  October,  1818.  la  that  instru 
ment  the  United  States  have  renounced  forever,  that  part  of  the 
fishing  liberties  which  they  had  enjoyed  or  claimed  in  certain  parts 
of  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  British  provinces,  and  within 
three  marine  miles  of  the  shores.  This  privilege,  without  being  of 
much  use  to  our  fishermen,  had  been  found  very  inconvenient  to  the 
British  :  and,  in  return,  we  have  acquired  an  enlarged  liberty,  both 
of  h'shing  and  drying  fish,  within  the  other  parts  of  the  British  ju 
risdiction,  forever  The  first  article  of  this  convention  affords  a 
signal  testimonial  of  the  correctness  of  the  principle  assumed  by 
the  American  plenipotentiaries  at  Ghent ;  for,  by  accepting  the 
express  renunciation  of  the  United  States,  of  a  small  portion  of  the 
privilege  in  question,  and  by  confirming  and  enlarging  all  the  re 
mainder  of  the  privilege/orerer,  the  British  government  have  im 
plicitly  acknowledged  that  the  liberties  of  the  third  article  of  the 
treaty  of  1783  had  not  been  abrogated  by  the  war,  and  have  given 
the  final  stroke  to  the  opposite  doctrine  of  Mr  Russell.  That  worda 
of  perpetuity  in  a  treaty  cannot  give  that  character  to  the  en 
gagements  it  contains,  is  not  indeed  a  new  discovery  in  diplomatic 
history  ;  but  that  truism  has  as  little  concern  with  this  question, 
as  the  annulment  of  our  treaty  of  1778  with  France,  so  aptly  ap 
plied  to  it  in  his  letter.  It  is  not,  therefore,  the  word  forever,  in 
this  convention,  which  will  secure  to  our  fishermen,  for  all  time, 
the  liberties  stipulated  and  recognised  in  it ;  but  it  was  introduced 
by  our  negotiators,  and  admitted  by  those  of  Great  Britain  as  a 
warning  that  we  shall  never  consider  the  liberties  secured  to  us  by 
it,  as  abrogated  by  mere  war.  They  may,  if  they  please,  in  case 
of  a  war,  consider  the  convention  as  abrogated,  but  the  privileges 
as  existing,  without  reference  to  their  origin.  But  they  and  we,  I 
trust,  are  forever  admonished  against  the  stratagem  of  demanding  a 
surrender,  in  the  form  of  notify  ing  a  forfeiture.  They  and  we  are 
aware,  forever,  that  nothing  but  our  own  renunciation  can  deprive 
us  of  the  right. 

The  second  article  of  this  same  convention  affords  a  demonstra 
tion  equally  decisive,  how  utterly  insignificant  and  worthless,  in  the 
estimation  of  the  British  government,  was  this  direfully  dreaded 
navigation  of  the  Mississippi.  The  article  gives  us  the  49th  pa 
rallel  of  latitude  for  the  boundary,  and  neither  the  navigation  of  the 
river,  nor  access  to  it,  was  even  asked  in  return. 

These  are  conclusive  facts — facts  appealing  not  to  the  prejudices 
or  the  jealousies,  but  to  the  sound  sense  and  sober  judgment  of 
men.  Without  yielding  at  all  to  Mr.  Russell,  in  my  "  trust  in  God 
and  the  valour  of  the  West,"  1  have  an  equal  trust  in  the  same  di 
vine  being,  as  connected  with  the  justice  of  the  \Ve«t.  I  have  the 


110 

perfect  and  undoubtingreliance,  that  to  the  clear-sighted  intelligence 
of  the  western  county,  the  gorgons,  and  hydras,  and  chimeras  dire, 
of  Mr.  Russell's  imagination,  raised  by  incantation  from  the  waters 
of  the  Mississippi,  will  sink  as  they  rose,  and  be  seen  no  more. 
Without  professing  to  sacrifice  any  of  those  ties  of  duty  and  alle 
giance,  which  bind  me  to  the  interests  of  my  native  State,  I  cannot 
allow  Mr.  Russell's  claim  to  a  special  ardour  for  the  welfare  of  the 
West,  to  be  superior  to  my  own,  or  to  that  of  the  deceased,  or  of 
the  living  colleague,  with  whom  I  concurred,  without  mental  re 
servation,  in  the  measure  subscribed  to.  and  denounced  by,  Mr. 
Russell.  We  were  all  the  ministers  of  the  whole  Union  ;  and 
sure  I  am,  that  every  member  of  the  majority  would  have  spurned 
with  equal  disdain  the  idea  of  sacrificing  the  interest  of  any  one 
part  of  the  Union  to  that  of  any  other,  and  the  uncandid  purpose 
of  awakening  suspicions  at  the  source  of  their  common  authori 
ty  here,  against  the  patriotism  and  integrity  of  any  one  of  his  col 
leagues. 

I  shall  conclude  with  a  passing  notice  of  the  three  alternatives, 
which  in  the  postscript  to  the  original  of  his  letter  of  1 1th  Februa 
ry,  1815,  he  says,  we  might  have  taken,  instead  of  that  which,  as 
he  alleges,  we,  against  his  will,  did  do.  We  had,  says  he,  three 
other  ways  of  proceeding  : 

"  First.  To  contend  for  the  indestructibility  of  the  treaty  of  1783, 
•c  thence  inferring  the  continuance  of  the  fishing  privilege,  without 
"  saying  any  thing  about  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  which 
"would  have  reserved  our  right  of  contesting  this  navigation,  on 
"  the  grounds  I  have  mentioned,  specially  applicable  to  it.  Se- 
"  condly,  To  have  considered  the  treaty  at  an  end,  and  offered  a 
"  reasonable  equivalent,  wherever  it  might  be  found,  for  the  fishing 
"  privilege."  Thirdly,  To  have  made  this  liberty  a  sine  qua  non 
"  of  peace,  as  embraced  by  the  principle  of  status  ante  bellum. 

"  To  either  of  these  propositions"  (he  adds,)  "  I  would  have  as- 
"  sented.  But  I  could  not  consent  to  grant  or  revive  the  British 
"right  to  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi." 

He  could  not  consent !  He  did  consent :  see  his  name  subscribed 
to  the  letter  from  the  American  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries  of 
12th  December,  1814 — p.  44  of  the  message  of  25th  February 
last. 

It  is,  indeed,  painful  to  remark  here,  and  throughout  this  letter 
of  Mr.  Russell,  how  little  solicitude  there  is  discoverable,  to  pre 
serve  even  the  appearance  of  any  coincidence  between  his  real 
sentiments  and  his  professions  :  half  his  letter  is  an  argument  in 
form  to  prove,  that  the  treaty  o*'  1783  was  abrogated  by  the  war ; 
yet,  he  says,  he  would  have  assented  to  contend  for  its  indestruc 
tibility,  so  long  as  it  applied  only  to  the  defence  of  the  fisheries, 
reserving  his  special  grounds  of  objection  to  its  being  applied  to- 
the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi.  1  have  shown,  that  the  inde 
structibility  of  the  treaty  of  1783  never  was  asserted  by  any  of  the 
American  commissioners  ;  but,  that  the  principle  that  it  bad  not 


in 

been  abrogated  by  the  war,  and  that  none  of  the  rights  stipulated 
and  recognised  in  it,  as  belonging  to  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  could  be  abrogated,  but  by  their  own  renunciation,  was  at 
first  assumed  in  defence  of  the  fisheries  only,  and  without  saying 
any  thing  of  the  Mississippi.  When,  therefore,  the  demand  for 
the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  came  from  the  British  plenipo 
tentiaries,  Mr.  Russell's  special  objections  to  the  application  of  our 
principle,  in  favour  of  our  demand,  might  have  been  urged.  But 
what  were  these  special  objections  ?  1  have  shown,  that  they  were 
our  own  wrong — fraud  and  extortion  upon  Spain,  to  justify  perfidy 
to. Great  Britain.  Mr.  Russell  never  did  allege  these  objections 
at  Ghent,  and,  if  he  had,  a  majority  of  the  American  mission  would, 
assuredly,  have  been  ashamed  to  allege  them  to  the  British  govern 
ment. 

The  second  way  of  proceeding,  to  which  Mr.  Russell  says  he 
would  have  assented  was  to  consider  the  treaty  of  1783  at  an  end, 
and  offer  for  the  fishing  privilege,  a  reasonable  equivalent,  wherever 
it  might  be  found — and  where  would  he  have  found  it  ?  He  will 
not  affirm  that  we  had  authority  to  offer  any  equivalent  whatever — 
we  had  been  specially  instructed  not  to  surrender  them.  He  says 
he  would  have  surrendered,  and  purchased  them  at  a  reasonable 
price  again. 

The  third  substitute,  to  which  he  says  he  would  have  assented, 
is  the  strangest  of  all.  He  says  he  would  have  made  it  a  sine  quu 
non  of  peace,  as  embraced  by  the  principle  of  status  ante  bellnm. 

A  sine  qua  non  for  the  status  ante  bellum  !  And  yet  he  could  not 
consent  to  grant  or  revive  the  British  right  to  the  navigation  of  the 
of  the  Mississippi  in  order  to  procure  or  preserve  the  fishing  lib 
erty  ;  when  the  status  ante  bellum  would  have  given  them  not  only 
the  whole  treaty  of  1783,  but  the  permanent  articles  of  the  treaty 
of  1794  ;  not  only  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  but  unre 
strained  access  to  our  territories  and  intercourse  with  our  Indians. 

I  have  shown  that  the  most  aggravated  portion  of  Mr.  Russell's 
charge  against  his  colleagues  of  the  majority,  that  of  wilful  viola 
tion  of  positive  and  unequivocal  instructions,  by  a  senseless  offer 
to  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  sacrificing  an  important  Western 
to  a  trifling  Eastern  interest,  is  not  only  utterly  destitute  of  founda 
tion,  but  that  it  was  not  even  made,  nay,  more,  that  it  was  distinctly 
contradicted  by  the  letter  really  written  by  Mr.  Russell  at  Paris, 
on  the  1 1th  of  February,  1815.  Into  Mr.  Russell's  motives  for  in 
troducing  it  into  the  duplicate  of  that  letter,  delivered  by  himself 
at  the  Department  of  State,  to  be  communicated  to  the  House  as 
the  letter  called  for  by  their  resolution,  I  shall  not  attempt  to 
penetrate  ;  having,  as  1  trust,  equally  shown  that  the  charges  im 
plied  in  the  real  letter  are  as  groundless  as  their  aggravations  in 
the  duplicate.  The  professions  of  unfeigned  respect  for  the  integ 
rity,  talents,  and  judgment,  of  those  colleagues  whose  conduct  is, 
in  the  same  letter,  represented  as  *o  weak,  absurd,  and  treacherous, 
|  can,  for  my  own  part,  neither  accept  nor  reciprocate.  To  havn 


112 

been  compelled  to  speak  as  in  these  remarks  I  have  done,  of  a  per 
son  distinguished  by  the  favour  of  his  country,  and  with  whom  I 
had  been  associated  in  a  service  of  high  interest  to  this  Union,  has 
been  among  the  most  painful  incidents  of  my  life.  In  the  defence 
of  myself  and  my  colleagues,  against  imputations  so  groundless  in 
themselves,  at  first  so  secretly  set  forth  and  now  so  wantonly  pro 
mulgated  before  the  legislative  assembly  of  the  nation,  it  has  been 
impossible  entirely  to  separate  the  language  of  self-vindication  from 
that  of  reproach.  With  Mr.  Russell  1  can  al^o  rejoice  that  the 
proposal  offered  on  the  1st  of  December,  1814,  was  rejected  by 
the  British  government,  not  because  I  believe  it  now,  more  than  I 
did  then,  liable  to  any  of  the  dangers  and  mischiefs  so  glaring  in 
the  vaticinations  of  Mr.  Russell,  but  because  both  the  interests  to 
which  it  relates  have  since  been  adjusted  in  a  manner  still  more 
satisfactory  to  the  United  States.  1  rejoice,  too,  that  this  adjust 
ment  has  taken  place  before  the  publication  of  Mr.  Russell's  letter 
could  have  any  possible  influence  in  defeating  or  retarding  it.  The 
convention  of  20th  October,  1318,  is  the  refutation  of  all  the  doc 
trines  of  Mr.  Russell's  letter,  to  which  there  can  be  no  reply.  It 
has  adjusted  the  fishing  interest  upon  the  principle  asserted  by  the 
American  mission  at  Ghent,  but  disclaimed  by  Mr.  Russell.  It  has 
given  us  the  boundary  of  latitude  49,  from  the  Lake  of  the  Woods 
westward,  and  it  has  proved  the  total  indifference  of  the  British 
government  to  the  right  of  navigating  the  Mississippi,  by  their 
abandonment  of  their  last  claim  to  it,  without  asking  an  equivalent 
for  its  renunciation. 

With  regard  to  the  magnitude  of  the  fishing  interest  which  was  at 
stake  during  the  negotiation  at  Ghent,  I  believe  the  views  disclosed 
in  Mr.  Russell's  letter  as  incorrect  as  the  principles  upon  which  he 
would  have  surrendered  it.  The  notification  of  exclusion  was  from 
all  fisheries  within  exclusive  British  jurisdiction  I  have  shown 
that,  historically,  Great  Britain  had  asserted  and  maintained  exclu 
sive  proprietary  jurisdiction  over  the  whole.  Had  we  tamely  ac 
quiesced  in  her  principle  of  forfeiture,  without  renunciation,  we 
should  soon  have  found  that  her  principle  of  exclusion  embraced 
the.  whole.  That  a  citizen  of  Massachusetts,  acquainted  with  its 
colonial  history,  with  the  share  that  his  countrymen  had  had  in  the 
conquest  of  a  great  part  of  these  fisheries,  with  the  deep  and 
anxious  interest  in  them  taken  by  France,  by  Spain,  by  Great  Bri 
tain,  for  centuries  before  the  American  revolution ;  acquainted 
with  the  negotiations  of  which  they  had  been  the  knot,  and  the  wars 
of  which  they  had  been  the  prize,  betvyeenthe  three  most  powerful 
maritime  nations  of  modern  Europe  ;  acquainted  with  the  profound 
sensibilit}' of  the  whole  American  Union,  during  the  revolutionary 
war,  to  this  interest,  and  with  the  inflexible  energies  by  which  it 
had  been  secured  at  its  close  ;  acquainted  with  the  indissoluble 
links  of  attachment  between  it  and  the  navigation,  the  navy,  the  ma 
ritime  defence,  the  national  spirit  and  hardy  enterprise  of  this  great 
republic  ;  that  such  a  citizen,  stimulated  to  the  discharge  of  duty  by 


113 

a  fresh  instruction  from  his  government,  given  at  the  most  trying 
period  of  the  war  upon  the  very  tirst  rumour  of  an  intention,  on 
the  part  of  Great  Britain,  to  demand  its  surrender,  not  to  surrender 
it,  sooner  to  break  off  the  negotiation  than  surrender  it ;  that  such 
a  citizen,  with  the  dying  words  of  Lawrence,  "  Don't  give  up  the 
"ship,"  still  vibrating  on  his  ear,  should  describe  this  interest  "as 
"  totally  unnecessary  for  us  for  subsistence  or  occupation,"  and 
affording,  "  in  no  honest  way,  either  commercial  facility  or  political 
'*  advantage,"  as  t;  the  doubtful  accommodation  of  a  few  fishermen 
"  annually  decreasing  in  number,"  is  as  strange  and  unaccountable 
to  me  as  that  he  should  deliberately  sit  down,  two  months  after  the 
treaty  was  concluded,  and  write  to  his  government  a  cold-blooded 
dissertation  to  prove  that  there  was  nothing,  absolutely  nothing,  in 
the  principle  upon  which  he  and  his  colleagues  had  rested  its  future 
defence,  and  that  he  considered  the  fishing  liberty  "  to  be  entirely 
"  at  an  end,  without  a  new  stipulation  for  its  revival." 

Such  were  not  the  sentiments  of  a  majority  of  the  American  com 
missioners  at  Ghent ;  such  were,  particularly,  not  the  sentiments 
of  the  writer  of  these  remarks.  He  reflects,  with  extreme  satis 
faction,  upon  that  deep  and  earnest  regard  for  this  interest  mani 
fested  at  that  time,  by  the  executive  government  of  the  United 
States,  in  the  positive  and  unqualified  instruction  of  25th  June,  1814, 
to  the  commissioners,  on  no  consideration  whatever  to  surrender 
the  fisheries.  He  rejoices  that  this  instruction  was  implicitly  obey 
ed  ;  that  the  nation  issued  from  the  war  with  all  its  rights  and  liber 
ties  unimpaired,  preserved  as  well  from  the  artifices  of  diplomacy, 
as  from  the  force  of  preponderating  power  upon  their  element,  the 
seas  ;  and  he  trusts  that  the  history  of  this  transaction,  in  all  its  de 
tails,  from  the  instruction  not  to  surrender  the  fisheries,  to  the  con 
clusion  of  the  convention  of  20th  October,  1818,  will  give  solemn 
warning  to  the  statesmen  of  this  Union,  in  their  conflicts  with  fo 
reign  powers,  through  all  future  time,  never  to  consider  any  of  the 
liberties  of  this  nation  as  abrogated  by  a  war,  or  capable  of  being 
extinguished  by  any  other  agency  than  our  own  express  renun 
ciation. 

JOHN  qUINCY  ADAMS. 

May  3,  1822. 


114 


THE  TRIPLICATE. 

In  the  National  Gazette,  of  10th  May,  1822,  printed  at  Philadel 
phia,  there  was  published,  headed  "For  the  National  Gazette,"  a, 
"  Letter  of  Jonathan  Russell,  Esq.  to  the  Hon.  the  Secretary  of 
State,  in  relation  to  the  negotiations  at  Ghent."  It  was  dated  Paris, 
1  Hh  February,  1815,  not  marked  "private,"  and  in  the  same  pa 
per  was  accompanied  by  the  following  article,  under  the  editorial 
head  : 

NEGOTIATIONS  AT  GHENT. 

The  call  made  in  Congress  for  a  particular  letter  of  Jonathan 
Russell,  Esq.  on  the  subject  of  the  negotiations  at  Ghent,  the  sup 
posed  object  of  that  call,  and  the  extraordinary  tenour  of  the  Pre 
sident's  reply  to  it,  have  excited  a  general  curiosity  respecting  the 
contents  of  the  document,  about  which  an  air  of  mystery  and  preg 
nant  importance  was  thus  thrown.  The  President  stated  in  his 
message,  as  our  readers  will  recollect,  that  lie  had  found  the  letter 
among  his  private  papers,  marked  ''private,"  by  the  writer,  whose 
view  of  his  own  conduct  and  that  of  his  colleagues  was  such  as 
would  demand  from  the  two  surviving  members  of  the  Ghent  mis 
sion,  a  reply  containing  their  view  of  the  transactions  in  question  ; 
which  reply,  upon  the  principles  of  equal  justice,  ought  to  be  com 
municated  at  the  same  time  to  Congress.  The  President  stated, 
also,  that  he  had  deposited  the  original  of  the  letter  in  the  Depart 
ment  of  State,  with  instructions  to  deliver  a  copy  to  any  person  who 
might  be  interested.  O^rfA  copy  has  come  into  our  hands,  for  the 
exactness  of  which  we  can  vouch,  and  which  we  publish  entire, 
this  afternoon  ;]  and  ss  the  House  of  Representatives  has  repeated 
the  call  for  the  document,  in  terms  that  have  empowered  the  Pre 
sident  to  submit  with  it  whatever  he  pleased  of  a  relevant  purport, 
we  may  expect  to  be  soon  able  to  lay  before  our  readers,  the  com 
munication,  in  the  nature  of  an  answer,  which  the  Secretary  of 
State  had  expressed  a  desire  to  be  permitted  to  oiler. 

Most  persons  will,  we  apprehend,  find  that  the  ide.is  respecting 
the  character  of  the  letter,  which  they  had  been  led  from  what  has 
passed,  to  form,  are  in  a  degree  erroneous.  Mr.  Russell  has  not 
arraigned  the  conduct  or  questioned  the  motives  of  his  colleagues, 
who  composed  the  majority  on  the  point  discussed — on  the  contra 
ry,  he  has,  we  observe,  emphatically  borne  testimony,  towards  the 
end  of  the  letter,  to  their  integrity,  (alents,  and  judgment ;  and  his 
purpose  seems  to  have  been,  not  to  prove  that  they  erred,  so  much 
as  to  furnish  a  satisfactory  apology  for  his  having  differed  with  them 
in  opinion.  If  he  marked  the  letter  "  private,"  it  is  not  thence  to 
be  inferred  that  he  meant  it  to  remain  secret  for  them,  or  absolute 
ly  ;  but  merely  that  it  should  not  be  considered  as  a  part  of  the 
public  and  official  record  of  the  negotiations,  or  otherwise  than  hi* 


115 

separate  and  personal  explanation  of  his  dissent  in  a  particular  and 
important  transaction  of  the  case.  We  would  remark  that  such  ex 
planations  are  by  no  menqs  rare  in  the  annals  of  diplomacy. — 
$$=•  [We  learn,  from  good  authority,  that  the  first  call  in  the  House 
of  Representatives,  for  ihe  correspondence  which  led  to  the  Treaty 
of  Ghent,  was  not  made  at  the  instigation  of  Mr.  Russell,  nor  in 
consequence  of  communications  with  him  ;  and  that  in  like  manner, 
he  had  no  share  in  the  call  for  the  private  letter.]  The  attention 
of  Mr.  Floyd  was  attracted  to  it,  we  presume,  by  the  following 
passage  of  a  short  extract  of  a  letter  from  Mr.  Russell  to  the  Secre 
tary  of  State,  contained  in  the  correspondence  which  the  Presi 
dent  submitted  to  Congress  on  the  25th  of  February. 

"As  you  will  perceive  by  our  despatch  to  you,  of  this  date,  that  a  majority 
only  of  the  mission  was  in  favour  of  offering  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  aa 
article  confirming  the  British  right  to  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  and  ours 
to  the  liberty  as  to  the  fisheries,  it  becomes  me  in  candour  to  acknowledge,  that 
I  was  in  the  minority  on  that  question.  I  must  reserve  to  myself  the  powei  of 
communicating  to  you,  hereafter,  the  reasons  which  influenced  me  to  differ  from 
a  majority  of  my  colleagues  on  that  occasion  ;  and  if  they  be  insufficient  to  sup 
port  my  opinion,  I  persuade  myself  they  will  at  least  vindicate  my  motives." 

That  his  letter  may  be  the  better  understood,  we  shall  proceed 
to  quote  that  part  of  the  official  despatch  to  which  he  refers,  which 
relates  to  the  article  mentioned.  The  despatch  is  dated  Ghent* 
25th  December,  1814  ;  and  is  among  the  papers  communicated  to 
Congress. 

"  At  the  first  conference  on  the  8th  of  August,   the  British  plenipotentiaries 
had  notified  to  us,  that  the  British  government  did  not  intend,  henceforth,  to  al 
low  to  the  people  of  the  United  States,  without  an  equivalent,  the  liberties  to 
fish,  and  to  dry  and  cure  fish,  within  the  exclusive  British  jurisdiction,  stipulat 
ed,  in  their  favour,  by  the  latter  part  of  the  third  article  of  the  treaty  of  peace 
of  1783.     And,  in  their  note  of  the  19th    August,  the  British  plenipotentiaries 
had  demanded  a  new  stipulation  to  secure  to  British  subjects  the  right  of  navi 
gating  the  Mississippi ;  a  demand,  which,  unless  warranted   by  anather  article 
of  that  same  treaty  of  1783,  we  could  not  perceive  that  Great  Britain  had  any 
colourable  pretence  for  making.     Our  instructions  had  forbidden  us  to  suffer  our 
right  to  the  fisheries  to  be  brought  into  discussion,  and  had  not  authorized  us  to 
make  any  distinction  in  the  several  provisions  of  the  third  article  of  the  treaty 
of  1783,  or  between  that  article  and  any  other  of  the  same  treaty.    We  had  no 
equivalent  to  offer  for  a  new  recognition  of  our  right  to  any  part  of  the  fisheries, 
and  we  had  no  power  to  grant  any  equivalent  which  might  be   asked  for  it  by 
the  Biitish  government.     We  contended  that  the  whole  treaty  of  1783,  must  be 
considered  as  one  entire  and  permanent  compact,  not  liable,  like  ordinary  trea 
ties,  to  be  ab  -ogated  by  a  subsequent  war  between  the  parties  to  it  ;  as  an  in 
strument,  recognising  the  rights  and  liberties  enjoyed  by  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  as  an  independent  nation,  and  containing  the  terms  and  conditions  on 
which  the  two  parts  of  one  empire  had  mutually  agreed,  thenceforth  to  consti 
tute  two,  distinct  and  separate  nations.     In   consenting  by  that  treaty,  that  a 
part  of  the  North  American  continent  should  remain  subject  to  the  British  juris 
diction,  the  people  of  the  United  States  had  reserved  to  themselves  the  liberty, 
which  they  had  ever  before  enjoyed,  of  fishing  upon  that  part  of  the  coasts,  and 
of  drying  and  curing  fish  upon  the  shores  ;  and  this  reservation  had  been  agreed 
to  by  the  other  contracting  party.     We  saw  not  why  this  liberty,  then  n  )  new 
grant,  but  a  mere  recognition  of  a  prior  right,  always  enjoyed,  should  be  forfeited 
fe-v  *  n-ar.  any  more  than  any  other  of  the  rights  of  oar  national  independence, 


116 

0r  why  we  should  need  a  new  stipulation  for  its  enjoyment,  more  than  we  need 
ed  a  new  article  to  declare  that  the  king  of  Great  Britain  treated  with  us  a.s 
free,  sovereign,  and  independent  States.  We  stated  this  principle,  in  general 
terms,  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  in  the  note  which  we  sent  to  tnevn,  with 
our  projet  of  the  treaty  ;  and  we  alleged  it  as  the  ground  upon  which  no  new 
stipulation  was  deemed  by  our  government  necessary  to  secure  to  the  people  of 
the  United  States,  all  the  rights  and  liberties  stipulated  in  their  favour  by  the 
treaty  of  1783.  No  reply  to  that  part  of  our  note  was  given  by  the  British 
plenipotentiaries  ;  but,  in  returning  our  projet  of  a  treaty,  they  added  a  clause 
to  one  of  the  articles,  stipulating  a  right  for  British  subjects  to  navigate  the 
Mississippi.  Without  adverting  to  the  ground  of  prior  and  immemorial  usage, 
if  the  principle  were  just,  that  the  treaty  of  1783,  from  its  peculiar  character, 
remained  in  force  in  all  its  parts,  notwithstanding  the  war,  no  new  stipulation 
was  necessary  to  secure  to  the  subjects  of  Great.  Britain,  the  right  of  navigating 
the  Mississippi,  as  far  as  that  right  was  secured  by  the  treaty  of  1783  ;  as,  on 
the  other  hand,  no  stipulation  was  necessary  to  secure  to  the  people  of  the  Unit 
ed  States  the  liberty  to  fish,  and  to  dry  and  cure  fish  within  the  exclusive  juris 
diction  of  Great  Britain. 

"If  they  asked  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  as  a  new  claim,  they  could 
not  expect  we  should  grant  it  without  an  equivalent ;  if  they  asked  it  because 
it  had  been  granted  in  1783,  they  must  recognise  the  claim  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  to  the  liberty  to  fish,  and  to  dry  and  cure  fish,  in  question.  To 
place  both  points  beyond  all  further  controversy,  a  majority  of  us  determined 
to  offer  to  admit  an  article  confirming  both  rights;  or,  we  offered  at  the  same 
time,  to  be  silent  in  the  treaty  upon  both,  and  to  leave  out  altogether  the  article 
defining  the  boundary  from  the  Lake  of  the  Woods  westward.  They  finally 
agreed  to  this  last  proposal,  but  not  until  they  had  proposed  an  article  stipulat 
ing  for  a  future  negotiation  for  an  equivalent  to  be  given  by  Great  Britain,  for 
the  navigation  of  the  Missisippi,  and  by  the  United  States,  for  the  liberty  as  to 
the  fisheries  within  British  jurisdiction.  This  article  was  unnecessary,  with  re 
spect  to  its  professed  object,  since  both  governments  had  it  in  their  power,  with 
out  it,  to  negotiate  upon  these  subjects  if  they  pleased.  We  rejected  it,  al 
though  its  adoption  would  have  secured  the  boundary  of  the  49th  degree  of  lati 
tude,  west  of  the  Lake  of  the  Woods,  because  it  would  have  been  a  formal  aban 
donment,  on  our  part,  of  our  claim,  to  the  liberty  as  to  the  fisheries,  recognised 
by  the  treaty  of  1783." 

For  the  more  complete  comprehension  of  the  foregoing  extract, 
and  Mr.  Russell's  letter,  we  copy  the  article,  and  two  extracts  from 
the  instructions  of  the  American  commissioners. 

Article  offered  by  the  American  to  the  British  Plenipotentiaries  at  Ghent,  on  the 
1st  of  December,  1814. 

*e  The  inhabitants  of  the  United  States  shall  continue  to  enjoy  the  liberty  to 
take,  dry,  and  cure  fish  in  places  within  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  Great  Bri 
tain,  as  secured  by  the  former  treaty  of  peace;  and  the  navigation  of  the  river 
Mississippi,  within  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  shall  remain 
free  and  open  to  the  suhjerts  of  Great  Britain,  in  the  manner  secured  by  that 
treaty  ;  and  it  is  further  agreed  that  the  subjects  of  his  Britannic  majesty  shall 
at  all  times  have  access,  from  such  place  as  mat/  be  selected  for  that  purpose,  in 
his  Britannic  majesty^  aforesaid  territories,  westward  and  within  three  hundred 
miles  of  the  Lake  of  the  Woods,  in  the  aforciaid  territories  of  the  United  States, 
tn  the.  river  Mississippi,  in  order  to  enjoy  the  benefit  of  tlte  navigation  of  that 
river,  with  their  goods,  effects,  and  merchandise,  whose  importation  into  the  said 
States,  shall  not  be  entirely  prohibited,  on  the  payment  of  the  same  duties  o.s- 
would  be  payable  on  the  importation  of  t/ie  same  into  the  Atlantic  ports  of  th*i 
mi.d  States,  and  on  conforming  with  the  usual  custom-house  regulations." 


117 

j£7*[Extract  of  a  letter  from  Mr.  Monroe,  Secretary  of  State,  to  the  American 
Commissioners. 

Department  of  State,  April  15,  1813. 

"  The  article  in  the  treaty  of  1794,  which  allows  British  traders  from  Ca 
nada  and  the  North  West  Company,  to  carry  on  trade  with  the  Indian  tribes, 
within  the  limits  of  the  United  States,  must  not  be  renewed.  The  pernicious 
effects  of  this  privilege  have  been  most  sensibly  felt  in  the  present  war,  by  the 
influence  whicfi  it  gave  to  the  traders  over  the  Indians,  whose  whole  force  has 
been  wielded  by  meant  thereof  against  the  inhabitants  of  our  Westtrn  States 
and  territories.  You  will  avoid  also  any  stipulatiou  which  might  restrain  the 
United  States  from  increasing  their  naval  force  to  any  extent  they  may  think 
proper,  on  the  lakes  held  in  common  ;  or  excluding  the  British  traders  from  the 
navigation  of  the  lakes  and  rivers,  exclusively  within  our  own  jurisdiction."] 

Extract  of  a  letter  from  the  same  to  the  same,  25th  June,  1814. 
"  Information  has  been  received  from  a  quarter  deserving  attention,  that  the 
late  events  in  France  have  produced  such  an  effect  on  the  British  government, 
as  to  make  it  probable  that  a  demand  will  be  made  at  Gottenburg,  to  surrender 
our  right  to  the  fisheries  —to  abandon  all  trade  beyond  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope, 
and  to  cede  Louisiana  to  Spain.  We  cannot  conceive  that  such  a  demand  will 
be  made.  Should  it  be,  you  will,  of  course,  treat  it  as  it  deserves.  These 
rights  must  not  be  brought  into  discussion.  If  insisted  on,  your  negotiations 


"  We  must  confess  that  we  consider  the  general  views  of  Mr. 
Russell,  which  are  only  exhibited,  as  for  the  most  part  sound,  and 
believe  with  him  both  that  the  treaty  of  1783  was  abrogated  by  the 
war,  and  that  much  mischief  might  have  resulted  from  allowing 
the  British  access  to  the  Mississippi  from  the  interior,  which  was 
offered  and  rejected.  But  we  must  wait  to  see  in  what  lights  the 
subject  has  been  placed  in  the  communication  of  Mr.  Adams.  It 
has  been  supposed,  and  indeed  asserted  with  some  exultation,  that 
the  disclosure  of  this  affair  would  affect  the  good  repute  of  that 
gentleman  with  the  country,  as  a  staunch  and  enlightened  patriot. 
It  may  be  confidently  believed,  however,  that  those  who  have 
predicted  or  desired  this  result,  will  be  disappointed.  If  he  com 
mitted  even  an  error  of  judgment,  it  was  in  common  with  Mr.  Gal- 
latin  and  Mr.  Bayard,  men  whose  diffusive  and  deep  love  of 
country,  and  whose  pervading  sagacity  and  powers  of  just  reflec 
tion  are  so  far  acknowledged  OH  one  side  or  the  other  by  the  poli 
tical  parties  of  the  Union,  that  they  may  be  declared  to  be  fully 
admitted.  And  when  the  case  shall  be  studied  in  all  its  circum 
stances  and  details  of  reasoning,  it  will  probably  be  universally  ac 
knowledged,  by  candid  minds,  to  be  one  as  to  which  the  course 
pursued  by  the  majority  of  the  commissioners  should  not  be  deemed 
inconsistent  with  the  best  dispositions  that  could  distinguish  Ame 
rican  negotiators.  We  hold  the  rejection  by  the  British  commis 
sioners  of  the  article  offered  to  them,  to  be  a  fortunate  incident, 
but  at  the  same  time,  we  think  it  entitled  to  no  small  weight  in  the 
question  of  the  judgment  which  ought,  at  this  distance  of  time,  to 
be  pronounced  on  the  proposal." 

In  this  article,  the  voucher  for  the  exactness  of  the  copy  —  the 
assertion  from  good  autlmrity,  that  Mr.  Russell  had  had  no  share 

15 


M8 

Jtl  either  of  the  calls  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  17  Jan^ 
F822,  for  the  Ghent  documents,  or  of  19  April,  1822,  for  his  own 
letter,  and  above  all,  the  extract  from  the  instructions  of  15  April, 
1813,  which  had  never  before  been  published,  but  of  which  Mr. 
Russell  had  recently  obtained,  from  the  records  of  the  Depart 
ment  of  State,  two  copies,  were  undoubted  indications  that  the 
publication  came  from  Mr.  Russell.  The  editor  of  the  Gazette 
has  indeed  since  stated,  that  the  editorial  article  was  written  by 
himself;  but  it  was  evidently  written  upon  representations  directly 
or  indirectly  from  Mr.  Russell.  The  opinions  expressed  in  the 
editorial  article  were  his  own,  but  the  facts  for  which  he  vouched, 
and  the  extract  from  the  cancelled  instructions,  could  have  been 
furnished  him  only  by,  or  at  the  instance  of,  Mr.  Russell. 

The  copy  of  the  letter  was  not  exact,  as  will  be  seen  by  the  fol 
lowing  extracts  from  a  subsequent  editorial  article  in  the  National 
Gazette  of  25  May,  1822. 

"  We  insert,  to-day,  the  reply  of  the  hon.  John  Q.  Adams,  Se 
cretary  of  State,  to  Mr.  Russell's  communications  to  the  govern 
ment  respecting  the  negotiations  at  Ghent." 

"  Upon  the  merits  of  the  main  argument,  we  do  not  intend,  and 
indeed  have  not  room,  to  express  an  opinion  to-day  ;  but  we  may 
remark  at  once,  that  so  far  as  regards  the  proposal  to  allow  the 
British  the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  Mr.  Adams  has  plac 
ed  his  conduct  and  views  beyond  the  reach  of  calumny  and  misap 
prehension  for  the  future.  It  will  be  seen  that  Mr.  Jefferson,  in 
1807,  then  President  of  the  United  States,  expressly  authorized 
Messrs.  Monroe  and  Pinkney,  who  were  negotiating  in  London,  to 
accede  to  a  stipulation  proposed  by  the  British  government  for  the 
navigation  of  that  river,  and  access  to  it  from  our  territories,  on 
submitting  to  the  duties  and  custom-house  regulations  applicable 
to  goods  and  effects  of  citizens  of  the  United  States. 

"  The  pamphlet  of  documents  printed  for  (Congress  embraces 
not  only  the  original  letter  of  Mr.  Russell,  as  received  by  Mr.  Mon 
roe,  but  the  paper  which  Mr.  Russell  on  the  22d  April  last,  left  at 
the  Department  of  State,  as  the  duplicate  of  that  letter,  and  which 
contains  passages  not  to  be  found  in  the  original.  In  publishing  the 
letter  of  Mr.  Russell,  we  undertook  to  vouch  for  its  exactness  as  a 
copy,  circumstances  having  led  tis  fully  to  believe  this  to  be  the 
case.  On  comparing  it,  however,  with  the  printed  original,  we 
found  the  following  variations  in  the  text 

"  (Quotation  from  our  publication  :  *  From  the  year  1783  to  the 

*  commencement  of  the  present  war,  the  actual  advantages  derived 

*  from  the  fishing  privilege  by  the  people  of  the   United  States, 
s  were,  according  to  the  best  information  that  we  could  obtain  on 
c  the  subject,'  &c.     The  text  of  the  original  is — /  can  obtain  on  the 
subject.     Again,  our  printed  text  is,  -  because  by  conceding  in  it 

*  (the  proposed  article)  to  Great  Britain  the  navigation  of  the  Mis- 

*  sissippi,  we  directly  violated  our  instructions,  and  we  offered,* 
&c.  The  phrase,  we  directly  violated  our  instructions,  is  not  in  the 


119 

tfnginal.  In  the  postscript  of  the  letter  in  our  text,  it  is  said, '  we 
had  three  ways  of  proceeding ;'  the  text  laid  before  Congress  is, 
1  we  had  three  other  ways  of  proceeding.' 

"  With  respect  to  the  variations  between  the  text  of  the  letter 
which  we  published  and  that  of  the  original,  we  would  remark  that 
they  are  likewise  in  the  duplicate,  deposited  in  the  Department  of 
State.'* 

The  most  remarkable  circumstances  attending  this  publication  of 
the  letter  in  the  National  Gazette,  were  the  time  selected  for  the 
purpose,  and  the  interpolations  still  retained,  while  nearly  all  those 
of  the  duplicate  were  dismissed.  The  letter  in  the  Gazette  was, 
with  the  exception  of  about  two  lines,  the  original  letter  entirely 
restored;  but  one  of  those  lines  was  "  we  directly  violated  our 
instructions"  and  its  retention  was  necessarily  connected  with  the 
citation  of  the  cancelled  paragraph,  published  fcs  part  of  the  accom 
panying  editorial  article.  For  those  were  the  instructions  alleged 
to  have  been  violated  ;  yet  this  was  after  I  had  shown  to  Mr.  Rus 
sell,  and  he  had  read  at  the  Department  of  State,  the  despatch  from 
the  Secretary  of  State,  which  had  revoked  those  instructions.  It 
was  apparent  also  that  Mr.  Russell  had,  before  he  left  Washington, 
prepared  himself  for  this  publication  at  Philadelphia,  and  at  a  time 
when,  from  the  President's  message  in  answer  to  the  call  from  the 
House  of  the  19th  of  April,  it  was  probable  the  letter  would  not 
be  communicated  to  the  House  at  all. 


From  the  Boston  Statesman  of  27  June,  1&22, 
MR.  RUSSELL'S  REPLY  TO  MR.  ADAMS. 

Is  was  not  until  the  30th  ult.  that  I  received  a  copy  of  the  com 
munication  which  had  been  made,  by  the  President,  to  the  House 
of  Representatives,  on  the  7th  of  that  month.  This  communication 
consists  of  a  letter  which  I  had  written  from  Paris  on  the  15th  of 
February,  1815,  and  addressed  to  the  then  Secretary  of  State,  of 
a  paper  left  by  me  at  the  Department  of  State,  on  the  22d  of  April 
last,  and  of  the  remarks  of  Mr.  Adams  on  both.  1  say  on  both — 
for,  notwithstanding  that  the  report  of  Mr.  Adams  to  the  President, 
speaks  only  of  his  remarks  on  the  paper  deposited  by  me  at  the 
Department,  as  just  mentioned,  yet  a  considerable  portion  of  those 
remarks  apply  to  the  letter  received  at  that  Department  in  1815. 
The  message  of  the  President  of  the  4th  ult.  indeed,  evidently 
considers  the  contemplated  report  of  Mr.  Adams  to  be  confined  to 
that  letter  only.  It  is  apparent,  from  the  whole  tenor  of  that  message, 
that  the  letter  which  Mr.  Monroe  received  from  Paris,  was  alone 
the  document  called  for,  and  to  be  communicated  to  the  House.  I 
was  surprised,  therefore,  on  receiving  the  printed  documents,  to 
find  that  either  more  had  been  called  for  on  the  6th,  or,  without 
being  embraced  by  such  call,  had  been  communicated  on  the  7th 
of  May,  than  had  been  signified  by  that  message. 


120 

I  had  left  Washington  on  the  5th,  io  the  belief  that,  at  so  late  a 
moment  of  the  session,  no  call,  in  reference  to  that  message,  would 
be  made,  or,  if  made,  that  it  would  produce  the  letter  only  receiv 
ed  from  Paris,  with  the  corresponding  report  of  the  Secretary  of 
State.  My  surprise  was  not  diminished  when,  on  reading  the  re 
marks  of  Mr.  Adams,  1  discovered  that  they  mainly  owed  their  ex 
istence  and  character  to  a  paper,  which  had  been  considered  not  to 
be  the  paper  called  for,  and  which  had  been  obtruded  on  the 
House,  after  my  departure,  at  the  special  instance  of  Mr.  Adams 
himself,  and  to  afford  him  an  opportunity  of  giving  another  speci 
men  of  his  taste  and  temper  to  the  public. 

Mr.  Adams,  on  the  6th  of  May,  the  very  next  day  after  my  de 
parture  from  Washington,  went  to  the  House  of  Representatives, 
and  there,  in  person,  sought  for  a  member  who  would  consent  to 
make  the  call  whic^i  was  necessary  for  the  official  publication  of 
his  personal  remarks.  To  one  member  from  Massachusetts,  at 
least,  he  had  applied  in  vain,  before  he  finally  succeeded  in  his  ob 
ject.  It  would  seem  that  the  evidence  furnished  by  these  facts 
oughr  to  have  been  sufficient,  at  least,  to  deter  him  from  accusing 
others  of  "  a  wanton  promulgation  before  the  legislative  assembly 
of  the  nation." 

For  the  previous  calls,  whatever  might  have  been  the  motive 
for  making  them,  I  am  not  responsible.  With  the  gentleman  who 
made  the  call  on  the  17th  of  January,  for  the  correspondence 
which  led  to  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  not  already  made  publ^,  I  had 
not  the  least  personal  acquaintance  at  the  time,  nor  hadBpbefore 
that  call  was  actually  made,  the  slightest  intimation,  direcuy  or  in 
directly,  of  any  intention  of  making  it. 

In  an  interview  with  Mr.  Adams,  at  his  house,  a  short  time  af 
terwards,  he  said,  in  reference  to  that  call,  that  a  letter  had  been 
found  from  me,  in  the  archives  of  State,  which  might  be  considered 
to  be  embraced  by  it.  He  desired  to  know  if  I  was  willing  to  have 
it  communicated.  I  replied  that  I  had  no  distinct  recollection  of 
the  letter  to  which  he  alluded,  and  that  I  wished  to  see  it  before  I 
gave  my  consent  to  its  publication.  He  acquiesced,  and  I  repaired 
accordingly  to  the  Department  of  State.  I  found  the  letter  to 
which  Mr.  Adams  had  referred,  to  be  that  which  I  had  written  at 
Ghent,  on  the  25th  of  December,  1815,  and  which  announced  the 
fact  of  my  having  been  in  the  minority  on  the  proposition  relative 
to  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  and  the  tishing  privilege,  and 
intimated  my  intention  of  communicating  the  reasons  which  had  in 
fluenced  my  conduct  on  that  occasion.  I  could  perceive  no  good 
cause  why  I  should  object  to  the  communication  of  such  a  letter, 
and  I  consented  that  the  part  which  related  to  the  subject  just 
mentioned,  should,  with  the  approbation  of  Mr.  Adams,  be  commu 
nicated.  Mr.  Adams  at  that  time  expressed  no  dissatisfaction  that 
I  had  written  such  a  letter,  nor  made  any  comment  on  its  contents. 
This  is  all  the  participation  which  I  had,  directly  or  indirectly, 
with  the  call  of  the  17th  of  January. 


121 

The  member  who  had  made  that  call,  made  also  the  call  of  the 
19th  of  April,  'i  his.  second  call  was  obviously  occasioned  by  the 
extract  of  rny  letter  of  the  25th  of  December,  1814,*  above  men 
tioned,  which  the  first  call  had  brought  forth.  To  that  member  I 
had  never  communicated,  by  transcript  or  otherwise,  the  contents 
of  my  letter  written  at  Paris,  for  which  he  called.  I  had  refused  to 
others  any  account  or  copy  of  that  letter,  for  which  they  had  applied 
to  me,  as  I  believed,  for  publication.  As  a  reason  for  thus  refusing, 
I  uniformly  assigned  the  necessity,  in  my  op:nion,  of  the  previous 
consent  and  approbation  ot  the  constituted  authorities  for  the  regu 
lar  publication  of  a  letter  written  by  me  while  in  the  public  ser 
vice,  to  one  of  those  authorities,  and  in  relation  to  that  service. 

All  the  participation  which  I  had  in  this  call  was,  to  leave  at  the 
Department  of  State,  in  consequence  of  an  application  from  thai 
Department,  the  paper  which  has  since  been  published  as  a  dupli 
cate.  The  simple  facts  are  these:  on  the  morning  of  the  20th  of 
April,  a  gentleman  employed  in  the  Department  of  State  called  on 
me  at  my  lodgings  and  inquired  if  1  could  furnish  a  duplicate  of 
the  letter  which  had  been  called  for.  I  intimated  a  reluctance  to 
communicating  any  thing  as  a  duplicate.  He  observed,  that  it  need 
not  be  presented  as  such  to  the  House,  but  wished  to  have  it  so 
presented  to  the  Department.  This  is,  in  substance,  what  was  said 
on  that  occasion. 

On  the  22d,  I  called  at  the  Department  of  State— Mr.  Adams 
was  not  there — and  1  left  the  paper  with  the  gentleman  who  had 
apj/lie^pto  me  for  it.  The  word  "  duplicate"  had  indeed  been 
written  on  it,  in  consequence  of  his  suggestion  as  above  stated  ;  but 
I  gave  no  further  intimation,  much  less  any  assurance,  that  it  was 
so.  He  made  no  inquiry,  and  I  made  no  comment.  I  observed 
merely,  that  I  left  it  for  the  examination  of  Mr.  Adams  ;  and  that  I 
was  indifferent  whether  it  was  communicated,  under  the  call  of  the 
House,  or  not,  as  the  letter  called  for  ;  but  if  not  so  communicated  ^ 
I  expressed  the  expectation  that  it  would  be  returned  to  me.  He 
received  it  accordingly. 

A  few  days  afterwards  I  again  visited  the  Department  of  State, 

*  Tlie following  is  the  extract  alluded  to  : 

Extract  of  a  letter  from  Jonathan  Russell,  esq.  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  dated 
at  Ghent,  25//t  of  December,  1814,  and  communicated  to  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives^  by  the  President,  on  the  21  at  of  February,  1822. 

"  My  necessary  occupation,  at  this  moment,  in  aiding  my  colleagues  to  prepare 
our  jo/nt  despatches,  puts  it  out  oj  my  power  to  jurnish  you  with  any  details  or 
observations  exclusively  my  own. 

"  As,  however,  you  'will perceive  by  our  despatch  to  you  of  this  date,  that  a  majo 
rity  only  of  the  mission  icas  in  favour  of  offering  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries) 
an  article  confirming  the  British  right  to  tfic  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  am; 
ours  to  the  liberty  as  to  the  fisheries,  it  becomes  me,  in  candour,  to  acknowledge  that 
I  was  in  the  minority  on  that  question.  I  must  reserve  the  power  of  column  ni- 
rating  to  you,  hereajtcr,  the  reasons  which  influenced  me  to  differ  from  a  majo- 
oity  of  my  colleagues  on  that  occasion,  and  if  they  be  insufficient  to  support  nv,- 
opinion,  I  per svadt  mi/self  they  will,  at  hast.,  vindicate  my  moticfa^ 


122 

and  was  again  so  unfortunate  as  not  to  find  Mr.  Adams  there.  I 
saw,  however,  the  gentleman  with  whom  I  had  left  the  paper,  and 
learnt  from  him,  that  as  it  had  been  dated,  as  he  supposed,  by  mis 
take  in  1822,  he  had  taken  the  liberty  to  correct  it,  by  inserting 
1816.  I  made  no  objection,  but  repeated  my  expectation,  that  if 
it  should  not  be  deemed  proper  to  use  it  for  the  purpose  for  which 
it  had  been  delivered,  it  would  be  returned  to  me. 

1  made  a  third  visit  to  the  Department  of  State,  on  the  2d  of  May, 
if  I  remember  correctly.  Mr.  Adams  was  then  in  his  office,  and 
in  passing  thither,  I  learned  from  the  gentleman  who  had  received 
the  paper  delivered  by  me  on  the  22d,  that  it  had  undergone  ano 
ther  alteration  in  its  date,  and  that  1816  had  been  made  to  give 
place  to  1815.  This  last  alteration  was,  it  seems,  found  necessary 
to  make  the  paper  agree  in  date  with  the  letter  received  from  Pa 
ris,  which  had  at  last  been  found  ;  and  thus  to  be  able  to  use  that 
paper,  with  a  better  grace,  as  a  duplicate,  and  to  abuse  it  with  the 
more  confidence  for  its  variation  from  that  letter.  The  corrective 
poivcr,  assumed,  appears  to  have  been  limited  acccordingly. 

Mr.  Adams  soon  spoke  of  the  paper  which  1  had  left,  on  the  22d, 
and  had  not  proceeded  far  without  complaining  of  its  difference 
from  the  original  which  had  been  found.  This  circumstance  he 
affected  to  consider  particularly  offensive.  In  vain  I  represented 
that  the  difference  between  the  two  was  not  material  ;  that  neither 
was  personal  or  accusatory  ;  that  both  were  merely  defensive  ; 
and  that  I  was  willing  that  either  or  neither  should  be  communicat 
ed,  as  he  might  judge  proper.  I  soon  perceived  that  itjfcas  too 
late  to  offer  explanation  with  a  prospect  of  success.  He  was  not  in 
a  humour  to  listen  to  me,  even  with  civility  ;  the  manner  in  which 
he  treated  the  business,  destroyed,  in  me,  even  a  wish  to  conciliate 
or  appease  him. 

1  have  stated  these  facts  principally  to  show,  that  the  paper  was 
left  at  the  Department  of  State,  not  on  my  own  proper  motion,  but 
that  it  was  left  there  on  the  application,  and  marked  duplicate  at 
the  suggestion  of  a  person  belonging  to  that  Department,  and  pos 
sessing  the  confidence  of  VIr.  Adams.  Such  an  application  was 
altogether  unexpected  by  me,  and  was  made  without  any  previous 
intimation,  suggestion,  or  encouragement  on  my  part ;  and  had  it 
not  been  made,  that  paper  would  never  have  been  left  at  the  De 
partment  of  State,  nor  in  any  other  manner  presented  to  the  pub 
lic.  Having  twice  failed  in  my  attempts  to  see  Mr.  Adams,  1  had 
no  opportunity  of  offering  those  explanations  which  the  case  ap-* 
peared  to  require,  until  it  was  too  late  to  offer  them. 

I  considered  it  an  act  of  frankness  to  place  the  paper,  when  thus 
applied  for,  whatever  might  be  its  merits  or  defects,  in  the  power 
of  the  person  who  might  consider  himself  the  most  liable  to  be  af 
fected  by  its  publication.  In  this  act  there  was  certainly  neither 
secrecy  nor  concealment  to  offend  him.  He  had  the  sole  power  to 
publish  it  or  not,  as  he  might  judge  proper,  and  to  consult  his  own 
feelings  and  interests,  in  forming  his  decision.  When  a  private  let- 


123 

ier,  written  solely  for  the  vindication  of  my  own  conduct,  to  those 
to  whom  I  war-  immediate!}7  responsible,  was  asked  of  me,  by  a  per 
son  known  to  be  under  the  orders  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  for  the 
purpose  of  presenting  it  lo  the  public,  a  tribun-d  for  which  it  had 
never  been  intended,  and  to  which  it  ought  not  to  have  been  pre 
sented  without  my  consent.  I  certainly  did  believe,  that  I  was 
permitted  to  make  those  corrections  of  the  copy  in  possession, 
which  appeared  to  me  to  be  proper  to  exhibit  my  case  most  advan 
tageously  before  that  tribunal.  I  the  more  confidently  entertained 
this  opinion,  as  the  paper  was  not  to  be  there  exhibited  without  the 
previous  examination  and  consent  of  the  adverse  party.  Such  were 
the  views  with  which  it  was  unreservedly  confided  to  Mr.  Adams. 
But  he  communicated  my  private  letter,  as  the  paper  called  for, 
and,  with  it,  he  disingenuously  communicated  the  paper,  entrusted 
to  him,  not  as  the  paper  called  for,  but  as  a  convenient  vehicle  for 
passionate  invective  and  intemperate  personal  abuse  against  .ae. 
If  justice,  or  even  decency  towards  me,  presented  no  obst;i -le, 
still,  I  should  have  believed,  that  a  respect  for  the  Representatives 
of  the  people  of  the  United  States,  would  have  at  least  been  suffi 
cient  to  have  deterred  him  from  so  rude  and  irregular  a  course  of 
proceeding. 

His  tirst  remark  on  what  he  ostentatiously  presents  as  a  duplicate 
is,  that  the  letter  written  at  Paris,  ''although  of  the  same  general 
purport  and  tenor,  with  the  so-called  duplicate,  differs  from  it  ia 
several  highly  significant  passages."  He  presents,  as  an  example, 
a  parallel  extracted  from  the  two  papers.  He  deduces  from  this 
parallel,  the  contradiction  that  I  did  believe,  in  the  one  paper,  and 
that  I  did  not  believe,  in  the  other  paper,  that  we  were  permitted, 
by  our  instructions,  at  Ghent,  to  offer  a  stipulation  for  the  naviga 
tion,  by  the  British,  of  the  Mississippi.  So  far  however,  from  the 
parallel  passages  exhibiting  such  a  contradiction,  they  contain 
within  themselves  the  evidence  of  their  consistency  with  each 
olher. 

The  original  letter  refers  exclusively  to  the  instructions  of  the 
25th  of  June,  1814,  (a)  on  which  the  majority,  in  the  despatch  of 
the  25th  of  December,  of  the  same  year,  solely  relied,  when  they 
j-aid,  "  our  instructions  had  forbidden  us  to  sutler  our  right  to  the 
fisheries  to  be  brought  into  discussion,  and  had  not  authorized  us  to 
make  any  distinction  in  the  several  provisions  of  the  3d  article  of 
the  treaty  of  1783." 

(o)  Extract  of  a  letter  of  insl nations,  rec tired  from  the  Secretary  by  the  Com 
missioners  at  GJtent,  dated  '25/A  of  June,  1814. 

"  ///  formation  has  been  rfceirrd,  from  a  quarter  deserving  attention,  that  the 
Idle  events  in  France  huce  produced  such  an  effect  on  the  British  government,  as 
lornake  it  probable  that  a  demand  will  be  made  at  Gothenburgh  tosurrtn'ier  our 
right  to  thejisherics,  to  abandon  all  trade  bfyvnd  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  and  tit 
cede  Louisiana  to  Spain.  7*  e  cannot  believe  that  s'ucli  a  demand ui/t  be  r. tide.; 
xhould  it  be,  if-Guutlf,  of  course,  treat  it  as  it  deserves.  These  rights  mu^not  be 
'irctight  into  discussion.  If  insisted  on,  your  negotiations  v.  ill  cease." 


124 

The  duplicate  also  refers  to  the  same  instructions,  and  perfectly 
agrees,  so  far  as  it  does  refer  to  them,  with  the  interpretation  of 
them  in  the  original  letter. 

The  original  letter  says,  The  duplicate  says, 

"The  majority  believed  them-  ''The  majority  believed  them 
selves  to  be  permitted  to  offer  a  selves  to  be  permitted,  their  own 
very  explicit  proposition,  with  construction  to  the  contrary  not- 
regard  to  the  navigation  of  its  withstanding,  to  offer  a  very  ex- 
principal  river.  I  believed  with  plicit  proposition  with  regard  to 
them  that  we  rtere  so  permitted,  the  navigation  of  its  principal  ri- 
and  that  we  were  likewise  per-  ver  ;  now  this  offer  I  considered, 
mitted  to  offer  a  proposition  re-  for  the  reasons  just  suggested, 
lative  to  the  fishing  liberty,"  &c.  not  to  be  a  violation  of  the  instruc- 

tionSy  in  question,"  &,c. 

Instead  of  any  contradiction  or  inconsistency,  there  is  here  a 
perfect  accordance  in  the  sense  of  the  two  papers,  in  relation  to 
the  instruction  of  the  25th  of  June. 

I  will  here  observe  that  my  letter,  written  at  Paris,  in  1815,  was 
as  may  be  readily  ascertained,  confined  to  a  discussion  of  the 
grounds  which  the  majority  assigned  or  suggested,  in  the  despatch 
of  the  25th  of  December,  for  the  offer  of  the  navigation  of  the 
Mississippi  for  the  fishing  privilege.  To  justify  my  own  conduct 
to  my  government,  in  opposing  that  offer,  1  believed  that  it  would 
be  sufficient,  at  the  time,  to  show  why  the  reasons  of  the  majority 
had  not  satisfied  me.  In  preparing  the  paper  which  I  left  at  the 
Department  of  State,  1  believed  it  to  be  proper,  for  the  causes 
already  suggested,  to  assign,  for  my  justification,  an  additional  reason 
which  had  influenced  me  in  the  course  which  I  pursued,  at  the 
time.  The  paper  therefore,  says,  in  speaking  of  the  offer,  "  but 
I  considered  it  to  be  against  the  letter  and  the  spirit  of  our  instruc 
tion  of  the.J5th  of  April,  1813."  (b.) 

Mr.  Adams,  in  his  remarks,  admits,  at  least  by  implication,  that 
"  the  letter  and  the  spirit"  of  this  instruction  was,  indeed,  against 
that  offer,  when  he  resorts  for  a  release  irom  the  obligation  of  ob 
serving  it,  to  other  instructions,  of  the  19th  of  October,  1814, 
which,  he  says,  were  received  on  the  24th  of  the  following  Nov. 
authorizing  the  status  ante  helium,  as  a  basis  of  negotiation.  He 

(6)  Extract  of  a  letter  of  instructions  from  the  Secretary  of  State,  to  the  Ameri 
can  Commissioners,  dated  15th  April,  18 13. 

"  The  article  in  the  Treaty  of  1794-,  which  allows  British  traders  from  Cana 
da,  and  the  North  West  Company,  to  carry  on  trade  with  the  Indian  tribes,  with 
in  the  limits  of  the  United  States,  must  not  be  renewed.  The  pernicious  effects  of 
this  privilege  have  been  most  sensibly  felt  in  the  present  war,  by  the  influence 
which  it  gave  to  the  traders  over  the  Indians,  whose  whole  force  has  been 
wielded,  by  means  thereof,  against  the  inhabitants  of. our  western  States  and 
territories.  You  will  avoid  also  any  stipulation,  that  might  restrain  the  United 
States  from  increasing  their  naval  force,  to  any  extent  they  may  thinkproper,  on 
the  Lakes,  held  in  common;  or  excluding  the  British  traders  from  the  naviga 
tion  of  the  lakes  and  rivers  exclusively  \vithin  our  own  jurisdiction.'* 


123 

evidently  means  to  insinuate  if  not  to  assert  that,  in  consequence  oi' 
the  basis,  thus  -authorized,  the  American  mission  discussed  the 
proposition,  relating  to  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  and  the 
iishing  privilege,  on  the  28th  and  29th  of  November,  and,  as  a  re 
sult  of  that  discussion,  offered  it  on  the  first  of  December  to  the 
British  ministers. 

This  statement  is  incorrect.  The  ?ense  of  the  mission  was  not 
distinctly  taken  on  the  28th  and  29th  of  November,  in  relation  to 
this  proposition,  nor  did  any  majority,  at  that  time,  agree  to  offer  it. 

The  following  is  the  real  history  of  the  transaction  : — 

On  the  24th  of  October,  we  addressed  a  note  to  the  British  mi 
nisters  and  repeated  a  request  already  made  to  them,  that  they 
would  communicate  all  the  other  specific  propositions,  (the  preli 
minary  article  proposed  by  the  British  government  having  already 
been  accepted  by  us)  offering  a  simultaneous  exchange  of  projects 
by  both  parties.  The  British  ministers,  by  their  note  of  the  31st 
of  that  month,  declined  complying  with  this  request,  saying  that 
they  had  already  by  their  note  of  the  21st  of  that  month,  communi 
cated  to  us  all  the  points  upon  which  they  were  instructed  to  insist. 
After  the  receipt  of  this  note,  we  met  together  every  day,  I  be 
lieve,  in  order,  tirst,  to  decide  if  we  should  present,  on  our  part,  a 
complete  project  to  the  British  ministers  without  insisting  on  a  si 
multaneous  one,  on  theirs,  and  then,  after  having  decided  to  do  so, 
to  prepare  and  digest  this  project,  until  the  10th  of  November, 
when  it  was  presented.  During  this  period  the  proposition  in 
qaestion,  after  having  been  repeatedly  and  thoroughly  discussed, 
was  carried,  as  a  part  of  the  project,  in  the  affirmative,  by  a  bare 
majority,  Mr.  Clay  and  myself  having  uniformly  opposed  it. 

After  the  majority  had  thus  decided  on  making  the  proposition 
just  mentioned  an  article  of  the  contemplated  project,  the  dissatis 
faction  of  the  minority  at  this  decision,  especially  of  Mr.  Clay,  who 
declared  that  he  would  sign  no  treaty  of  which  such  an  article 
should  make  a  part,  induced  the  majority,  particularly  the  gentle 
man  who  is  now  no  more,  to  relax  in  their  adherence  to  it,  and  to 
consent  to  present  our  project  without  such  an  article.  Instead  of 
such  an  article  in  the  project,  or,  as  Mr.  Adams  himself  avows,  as 
a  substitute  for  it,  the  paragraph,  justly  ascribed  by  him  to  Mr. 
Clay,  was  inserted  in  the  note  of  the  10th  of  November. 

That  this  .proposition  had  been  decided  on,  before  the  10th  of 
November,  is  not  only  to  be  inferred  from  the  avowal  of  Mr. 
Adams,  just  mentioned,  that  a  substitute  for  it  had  been  inserted  in 
cur  note  of  that  day,  but  is  expressly  proved  by  the  following  ex 
tracts  of  two  letters  which  1  addressed,  at  the  time,  to  the  Ameri 
can  minister  at  Paris. 

The  tirst  is  dated  at  Ghent,  the  4th  of  November,  1814,  and 
says, 

"  If  we  adhere  to  the  understanding  which  we  now  have,  we 
shall  make  the  status  <////(•  bellwn  a  sine  qua  non.  The  questioa 

16 


126 

which  most  perplexes  us  is  the  fisheries,  and  we  hata  not  yet  de 
cided  on  the  mode  of  proceeding,  in  relation  to  it.  They  have  told 
us  that  the  liberty  of  taking,  drying,  and  curing  fish  within  the  ex 
clusive  jurisdiction  of  Great  Britain,  will  not  be  continued  to  us 
without  an  equivalent ;  we  cannot  relinquish  this  liberty,  and  we 
cannot  offer  territory  as  an  equivalent.  Shall  we  then  offer  the 
free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  which  they  apparently  suggested 
with  this  view.  I  think  this  will  be  carried  in  the  affirmative,  al 
though  I  have  very  serious  objections  to  the  measure." 

The  other  letter  was  dated  the  20th  of  November,  1814,  and  says 
as  follows  : — 

"  Without  having  been  deceived  relative  to  the  disposition  of  the 
majority,  on  the  subject  of  the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  I 
am  happy  to  inform  you  that  this  disposition  was  not  inflexible,  and 
we  finally  transmitted  our  project  without  the  article  that  had  at 
first  been  carried."  This  article  was  as  follows  : — 

"  The  right  and  liberty  of  the  people  and  inhabitants  of  the  Unit 
ed  States  to  take,  dry,  and  cure  fish  in  places  within  the  exclusive 
jurisdiction  of  Great  Britain  as  recognised  (arid  secured)  by  the 
former  treaty  of  peace;  and  the  privilege  of  the  navigation  of  the 
Mississippi,  within  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States, 
(as  secured  to  the  subjects  of  Great  Britain  by  the  same  treaty)  are 
hereby  recognised  and  confirmed." 

"  Besides  the  objection  to  such  an  article  which  had  occurred  to 
you,  and  which  had  not  escaped  us,  the  blending  of  the  two  points 
together  and  making  them  mutually  dependent  on  each  other,  which 
was  not  done  in  the  treaty  of  1783,  made  this  article  the  mope  ob 
jectionable." 

From  these  facts  it  is  manifest  that  the  solution  afforded  by  Mr. 
Adams  for  "  the  difference  in  my  mind  between  the  writing  of  the 
original  and  the  duplicate"  is  not  correct.  A  despatch,  received 
on  the  24th  of  November,  could  not  well  have  had  any  influence  on 
my  reasons  for  opposing  a  measure,  previous  to  the  10th  of  that 
month. 

I  have  accused  no  one  of  acting  against  instructions,  but  surely 
I  ought  not  to  offend  if  I  discovered  a  disposition  to  act,  as  far  at 
least  as  might  be  expedient,  in  conformity  to  my  own  construction 
of  them. 

Mr.  Adams,  when  I  last  saw  him  at  the  Department  of  State, 
showed  me  on  record,  an  instruction  to  the  American  ministers  at 
Ghent,  dated  the  fourth  of  October,  1814,  apparently  with  a  view 
to  freshen  my  memory  in  relation  to  our  dispensation  from  the  obli 
gation  of  observing  the  instructions,  which  I  had  alleged  as  a  cause 
for  opposing  the  proposition,  with  respect  to  the  Mississippi.  I 
had  not  proceeded  far,  however,  in  its  perusal,  before  Mr.  Adams 
interrupted  me  by  saying  that  he  believed  it  had  not  been  received 
at  the  time,  adding,  after  a  momentary  pause,  that  he  did  not  know 
if  it  hod  ever  been  received.  The  instructions  of  the  4th  of  Octo 
ber,  which  had  never  been  received,  had  just  as  much  influence  on 


127 

the  discussions  of  the  mission  previous  to  the  10th  of  November,  as 
a  letter  of  the  19th  of  October  which  was  not  received  until  more 
than  fourteen  days  after  those  discussions  had  taken  place. 

It  may  not  be  improper  to  remark  here  that  an  instruction  re 
ceived  on  the  24th  of  November,  authorizing  the  status  antebellum., 
although  highly  satisfactory  as  it  regarded  the  past,  could  not  well^ 
considering  what  had  already  been  done,  have  had  much  practical 
effect  on  the  future  negotiations.     On  the   10th  of  that  month  we 
had,  in  substance  if  not  in  name,  already  proposed  that  basis  in  op 
position  to  that  of  the  uti  possidetis,  urged  by  our  adversaries.     la 
our  note  to  them  of  that  date,  xve  offered  with  a  sufficient  precision 
the  status  ante  bcllum,  when  we  said  that  the  undersigned  "  cannot 
agree  to  any  other  principle  than  that  of  a  mutual  restoration  of 
territory,  and  have  accordingly  prepared  an  article  founded  on  that 
basis.     They  are  willing  even  to  extend  the  same  principle  to  the 
other  objects  in  dispute  between  the  two  nations  ;  and  in  proposing 
till  the  other  articles  included  in  this  project,  they  wish  to  be  dis 
tinctly  understood  that  they  are  ready  to  sign  a  treaty  placing  the 
two  countries,  in  respect  to  all  the  subjects  of  difference  between 
them  in  the  same  state  they  -were  in  at  the  commencement  of  the  pre 
sent  war,  reserving  to  each  party  all  its  rights,  and  leaving  what 
ever  may  remain  of  controversy  between  them,  for  future  and  pa 
cific  negotiation." 

Besides,  the  proposition  to  which  I  objected  before  the  10th  of 
November,  and  which  was  substantially  that  first  offered  on  the  1st 
of  December,  was  not,  in  my  opinion,  authorized  by  the  status  ante 
bellum.  1  distinctly  stated,  in  my  letter,  that  the  revival  of  the 
British  tight  to  navigate  the  Mississippi  would  be  under  existing 
circumstances,  a  new  and  complete  grant  to  her,  &c.  And  in  ano 
ther  place,  "  in  thus  offering  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  and 
the  access  to  it  through  our  territories,  as  an  equivalent  for  the 
fishing  liberty,  we  not  only  placed  both  on  ground  entirely  different 
from  that  on  which  they  respectively  stood  in  the  treaty  of  1783," 
&c. 

The  meetings  of  the  American  mission  on  the  28th  and  29th  of 
November,  were  not  in  consequence  of  the  despatch  received  on 
the  24th  of  that  month.  They  were  convened  for  the  purpose  of 
discussing  "the  alterations  and  suggestions"  of  the  British  minis 
ters  on  our  project  which  they  had  returned  to  us  on  the  27th, 
with  an  explanatory  note  of  the  26th.  Whatever  might  have  been 
said  at  these  meetings  in  relation  to  the  Mississippi,  on  account  of 
the  alteration,  respecting  it,  made  in  the  8th  article  of  our  project, 
by  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  no  new  resolution  was  there  taken 
by  the  American  mission  to  offer  the  navigation  of  that  river  for  the 
fishing  privilege.  This  offer  was  made  on  the  1st  of  December., 
in  virtue  of  the  vote  taken  before  the  10th  of  November,  and 
which,  although  suspended,  had  not  been  reconsidered  or  cancelled, 
I  am  the  more  confident  in  this  statement,  as  1  distinctly  remember 
that  when  that  offer  was  actually  made,  it  was  unexpected  by  a  ma* 


128 

jority  of  the  mission.  Mr.  Bayard,  in  returning  home  from  the 
house  of  the  British  ministers,  where  the  conference  of  the  1st  of 
December  had  been  holden,  very  explicitly  declared  to  Mr.  Clay 
and  to  me,  his  dissatisfaction  that  this  offer  had  been  made  without 
his  having  been  recently  consulted  in  relation  to  it.  I  dare,  in  regard 
to  these  facts,  to  appeal  to  the  recollection  of  Mr.  Clay  in  confirm 
ation  of  my  own. 

The  explanation  which  I  have  given,  will,  I  trust,  be  sufficient  to 
show  that  there  could  have  been  no  impropriety  in  stating,  at  any 
time,  the  instructions  of  the  15th  of  April,  1813,  as  furnishing  an 
objection,  at  least  during  the  first  days  of  Nov.  to  a  proposition 
to  revive  or  continue  to  Great  Britain  aright  to  the  free  navigation 
of  the  Mississippi — a  river  within  our  exclusive  jurisdiction.  As 
this  was  the  only  topic,  in  the  paper  left  at  the  Department  of 
State,  which  was  not  in  the  letter  received  from  Paris,  which  could 
by  the  most  sickly  imagination,  be  strained  into  anattack  upon  others, 
I  shall  take  but  little  notice  of  the  remarks  of  Mr.  Adams  in  relation 
to  the  remainder  of  that  paper. 

The  opinion  which  I  there  suggested,  concerning  the  cause  of 
the  rejection  of  our  proposition  by  the  British  ministers,  was  an 
opinion  formed  soon  after  that  event,  and  1  mentioned  it  to  several 
persons,  particularly  to  the  American  minister  at  Paris,  at  or  about 
the  time  my  letter  was  written  at  that  place.  A  "  trust  in  God  and 
the  valour  of  the  West,"  for  the  disappointment  of  our  enemies, 
was  naturally  suggested,  at  the  time,  by  a  pious  and  patriotic  con 
fidence  in  those  who  were  able  and  might  be  willing  to  defend  us, 
and  certainly  had  nothing  in  it  of  prophecy.  It  was  evidently  more 
wise  to  place  a  trust  there  than  instinctively  in  the  fish  of  the  East, 
which  were  swimming  in  British  waters.  Nor  was  there  any  sem 
blance  of  prediction  of  the  treaty  of  1818,  in  a  belief  that  the  fishing 
privilege  might  thereafter  be  obtained,  by  negotiation,  "without 
any  extravagant  equivalent,  whatever,"  as  that  belief  was  not  only 
suggested  by  the  nature  of  the  case,  but  authorized  by  the  explicit 
offer  made  by  the  British  ministers,  on  the  10th  of  December, 
1814,  thus  to  negotiate  and  to  grant  that  privilege  in  consideration 
of  a  fair  equivalent.  By  the  measure  of  Mr.  Adams,  no  extrava~ 
gant  equivalent  is  precisely  equal  to  no  equivalent  at  all. 

As  to  the  sentiment  which  1  expressed  in  favour  of  the  fishermen 
immediately  interested  in  that  privilege,  it  is  a  sentiment  always 
and  every  where  felt  by  me,  and  could  not  be  expressed  out  of 
time  or  place. 

Thus  much  for  the  important  differences,  between  the  private 
letter  received  from  Paris  and  the  paper  left  at  the  Department  of 
State,  which  have  afforded  such  an  ample  field  to  Mr.  Adams  for 
the  display  of  the  enviable  attributes  of  his  head  and  heart. 

I  shall  now  make  a  few  brief  observations  on  the  principal  charges 
which  he  exhibits  against  me,  of  inconsistency  and  misrepresent 
ation. 

The  principle,  that  the  treaty  of  1783  was  not,  on  account  of  if? 


129 

peculiar  character,  abrogated  by  tbe  war,  Mr.  Adams  not  only  *v, 
asserts,  but  alleges  to  have  obtained,  when  first  suggested  by  him  at 
Ghent,  the  unanimous  assent  of  the  American  mission.  The  prooi' 
of  this  allegation  appears  to  be  inferred  from  the  signature,  by  alt 
that  mission,  of  a  note,  to  the  British  ministers,  of  the  10th  of  No 
vember,  in  which  that  principle  was  partially  adopted.  It  has  al 
ready  been  seen,  even  from  the  avowal  of  Mr.  Adams  himself,  that 
the  paragraph,  offered  by  Mr.  Clay,  admitting  that  doctrine,  was  a 
substitute  to  a  proposition  which  the  minority  had  opposed.  To 
adopt,  partially,  in  the  spirit  of  compromise,  a  doctrine,  as  a  pretext, 
to  preserve  the  fishing  privilege  and  to  get  rid  of  a  proposition  con 
firmative  of  the  British  right  to  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi, 
cannot  fairly  be  considered  a?  an  unanimous  acknowledgment  by  the 
American  mission,  of  the  orthodoxy  of  that  doctrine.  The  consti 
tution  of  the  United  States  was,  avowedly,  the  result  of  compro 
mise,  and  thence  some,  at  least  of  those  who  signed  that  instrument, 
must  necessarily  have  subscribed  to  provisions  which  they  did  not 
desire,  and  to  opinions  which  they  did  not  approve.  The  infer 
ence  of  Mr.  Adams  is,  therefore,  not  correct.  I  do  not  recollect, 
indeed,  that  any  member  of  the  mission,  excepting  Mr.  Adams  him 
self,  appeared  to  be  a  very  zealous  believer  in  that  doctrine.  Even 
Mr.  Gallatin,  in  his  separate  letter  of  the  25th  of  December,  1814, 
(c)  speaks  only  of  this  doctrine  as  one  that  had  been  assumed.  Sure 
it  is  that  the  minority  consented  to  admit  that  doctrine  as  an  expe 
dient  only  to  prevent  the  proposition,  already  decided  on  by  the 
majority,  from  constituting  an  article  of  our  project.  So  far  and  no 
farther  were  the  minority  willing  to  go  in  adopting  that  doctrine* 
but  whenever  it  was  proposed  to  sanction  the  British  right  to  navi 
gate  the  Mississippi,  they  uniformly  resisted  it. 

Mr.  Adams  also  asserts  that  the  proposal  confirming  the  British 
right  to  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  and  ours  to  the  fishing 
privilege,  was  made  not  by  a  majority,  but  by  the  whole  of  the  Ame 
rican  mission,  and  refers  to  the  protocol  of  the  conference  of  the 
1st  of  December,  at  which  that  proposal  was,  at  length,  made,  and 
to  our  note  of  the  14th  of  that  month,  signed  by  all  the  American 
mission,  which  said  that  '"  to  such  an  article,  which  they  viewed  as 
merely  declaratory,  the  undersigned  had  no  objection,  and  have  of 
fered  to  accede." 

(c)  Extract  of  a  letter  from  Albert  Gallatin,  Esq.  to  the  Secretary  of  State, 

dated  25(h  December,  1814. 

"  On  the  subject  of  the  fisheries,  within  the  jurisdiction  of  Great  Britain, 
we  hare  certainly  done  all  that  could  be  done.  If  according  to  the  construction 
of  the  treaty  of  1783,  which  we  assumed,  the  right  was  not  abrogated  by  the 
•war,  it  remains  entire,  since  we  most  explicitly  refused  to  renounce  it,  eillier  di 
rectly  or  indirectly.  In  that  case  it  is  only  an  unsettled  subject  of  difference  be* 
tween  the  two  countries.  If  the  right  must  be  considered  as  abrogated  by  the 
war,  we  cannot  regain  it  without  an  equivalent.  We  had  none  to  give  but  the 
recognition  of  their  right  to  na\igate  the  Mississippi,  and  we  offtred  it.  On  this 
last  supposition  this  right  is  also  lost  to  them  ;  and,  in  a  general  point  of  view, 
we  certainly  hav«  lost  nothing.'" 


130 

if  he  had  referred,  at  the  same  time,  to  the'clespatch  of  the  25th 
December,  1814,  (/I)  he  would  there  have  seen  that,  in  fact,  ama- 

(d)  Extractfrom  a  despatch  from  the  American  Plenipotentiaries  to  the  Secrela< 
ry  of  Stale,  dated  at  Ghent,  ttth  of  December, 


At  fhc  first  conference,  on  the  Slh  of  August,  f  he  British  plenipotentiaries  had 
notified  us,  t/tat  Ike  British  government  did  not  intend,  henceforth,  to  allow  to  the 
people  of  the  United  States,  without  an  equivalent,  the  liberties  to  Jish,  and  to 
dry  and  cure  Jish  within  the  exclusive  British  jurisdiction,  stipulated  in  their 
favour  by  the  tatter  part  of  the  third  article  of  the  treaty  of  peace  of  1783.   And 
in  the  note  of  the  l9//t  of  *'h/-gusf,  the  British  plenipotentiaries  had  demanded  a 
new  stipulation  to  secure  to  British  subjects  the  right  of  navigating  the  Missis 
sippi,  a  demand,  which,  unless  warranted  by  another  article  of  the  same  treaty 
of  1  783,  we  could  not  perceive  that  Great  Britain  had  any  colourable  pretext  for 
Waking.     Our  instructions  had  forbidden  us  to  suffer  our  right  to  the  fisheries 
to  be  brought  into  discussion,  and  had  not  authorized  us  to  make  any  distinction 
in  the  several  provisions  of  the  third  article  of  the  treaty  of  1  783,  or  between  that 
article  and  any  other  of  the  same  treaty.     We  had  no  equivalent  to  offer  for  a 
new  recognition  of  our  right  to  any  part  of  the  fisheries,  and  we  had  no  power 
to  grant  any  equivalent,  which  might  be  asked  for  it  by  the  British  government. 
Wt  contended  that  the  whole  treaty  of  1783  must  be  considered  as  one  entire  and 
permanent  compact,  not  liable,  like  ordinary  treaties,  to  be  abrogated  by  a  sub 
sequent  war  between  the  parties  to  it,  as  an  instrument  recognising  the  rights  and 
liberties  enjoyed  by  the  people  of  the  United  States  as  an  independent  nation,  and 
containing  the  terms  and  conditions  on  which  the  two  parts  of  one  empire  had 
mutually  agreed,  thenceforth,  to  constitute  two  distinct  and  separate  nations.     In 
consenting,  by  that  treaty,  that  a  part  of  the  North  American  continent  should 
remain  subject  to  the  British  jurisdiction,  the  people  of  the  United  States  had 
reserved  to  themselves  the  liberty,  which  they  had  ever  before  enjoyed,  ofjishw1^ 
on  that  part  of  the  coast,  and  of  drying  and  curing  Jish  upon  the  shores  —  and 
this  reservation  had  been  agreed  to  by  the  other  contracting  party.     We  saw  nut 
why  this  liberty,  then  no  new  grant,  but  a  mere  recognition  of  a  prior  right, 
should  be  forfeited  by  war,  any  more  than  any  other  of  the  rights  of  our  national 
independence  —  or  why  we  should  need  a  new  stipulation  for  Us  enjoyment  more 
than  we  needed  a  new  article  to  declare  that  the  king  of  Great  Biitain  treated 
with  us  as  free,  sovereign,  and  independent  States.  We  staled  this  principle,  in 
general  terms,  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  in  the  note  which  we  sent  to  them, 
with  our  project  of  the  treaty  —  and  we  alleged  it  as  the  ground  upon  which  no 
new  stipulation  was  deemed  by  our  government  necessary  to  secure  to  the  people 
of  the  United  Slates  all  the  rights  and  liberties,  stipulated  in  their  favour  by  the 
treaty  of  1783.     JVb  reply  to  that  part  of  our  note  was  given  by  the  British 
plenipotentiaries  ;  but,  in  returning  our  project  of  a  treaty,  they  added  a  clause 
to  one  of  the  articles  stipulating  for  a  right  for  British  subjects  to  navigate  the 
Mississippi,*  without  adverting  to  the  ground  of  prior,  and  immemorial  usage, 
if  the  principle  were  just,  that  the  treaty  of  1783,  from  its  peculiar  character, 
remained  in  force  in  all  its  parts,  notwithstanding  the  war,  no  new  stipulation 
ic  as  necessary  to  secure  to  t/ie  subjects  of  Great  Britain  the  right  of  navigating 
the  Mississippi  as  far  as  that  right  was  secured  by  the  treaty  of  1783  ;  as  on  the 
other  hand,  no  new  stipulation  was  necessary  to  secure  to  the  people  of  the  United 
States  the  liberty  to  Jish  and  to  dry  and  cure  Jish,  within  the  exclusive  jurisdic 
tion  of  Great  Britain.     If  they  asked  (lie  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  as  a 
new  claim,  tliey  could  not  expect  we  sJiould  grant  it  without  an  equivalent  ;  if 
they  asked  it  because  it  had  been  granted  in  1783,  they  must  recognise  the  claim 
vf  the  people  of  the  United  States  to  the  liberty  to  Jish  and  to  dry  and  cure  Jish 
tn  question. 

To  place  both  points  beyond  all  future  controversy,  A  MAJORITY  OP  us  de° 
tormined  to  offer  to  admit  an  article  confirming  both  rights. 

*  This  passage  is  here  incorrectly  quoted  by  erroneous  punctuation  ;  exhibiting  a  sense  dif-« 
fer«nt  from  that  of  the  original  —  for  which  see  p.  c>5;  but  it  is  here,  as  published  in  the  Bostaa 
Statesman  of  27  Jure.  A» 


131 

jonfy  only,  and  not  the  whole  of  the  mission,  decided  to  make  that 
proposal.  The  words  of  the  despatch,  in  reference  to  that  pro 
posal,  are,  "  to  place  both  points  beyond  all  future  controversy,  a 
majority  of  us  determined  to  offer  an  article  confirming  both  rights." 
Mr.  Adams  signed  that  despatch,  anil  thus,  at  that  time,  attested  a 
fact  which  he  now  positively  denies. 

The  protocol  was  a  mere  record  of  the  facts  which  had  occurred 
p.t  the  conference,  and  in  no  way  furnished  proof  that  a  proposition, 
there  made  had  or  had  not  been  previously  decided  on  una 
nimously  by  the  mission  making  it.  The  protocol  of  the  1st  of 
December  stated  that  the  proposal  in  question  had  been  offered  bj 
the  American  mission,  and  the  note  of  the  14th  of  that  month  sim 
ply  recognised  that  fact.  Neither  that  protocol  or  that  note  inti 
mated  that  this  proposal  had  been  unanimously  offered  by  the 
American  mission.  The  majority  who  were  competent  before  the 
JOth  of  November,  to  determine  on  making  that  proposal,  were 
equally  competent  to  make  it  on  the  1st  of  December,  and  to  say, 
on  the  14th  of  that  month,  that  they  had  made  it,  and  that  "  to  it 
they  had  no  objection,  and  had  offered  to  accede."  The  minority, 
in  net  expressing  their  dissent  at  that  conference,  or  by  not  refus 
ing  to  sign  that  note,  cannot  be  fairly  adjudged  to  have  inconsist 
ently  given  their  assent.  They  had  opposed  that  proposal  when 
and  where  only  their  opposition  could  have  had  a  beneficial  effect, 
and  produced  no  evil.  To  have  disturbed  a  conference  with  the 
British  ministers  by  protesting  against  an  act  of  the  majority,  or  to 
have  refused  to  sign  a  note  from  an  objection  to  that  act,  could 
have  produced  evil  only.  It  would  have  discovered  to  the  adverse 
party  dissention  in  our  councils,  and  thence  might  have  had  a  disas 
trous  effect  on  the  whole  negotiation.  In  relation  to  the  proposal 
itself,  such  a  discovery  to  that  party  of  our  opposition  to  a  particu 
lar  proposal,  was  calculated  to  enhance  the  value  of  that  proposal, 
in  their  estimation,  and  to  induce  them  to  accept  it ;  thus  consum 
mating  the  very  evil  which  we  deprecated.  The  act  of  the  majo 
rity  was,  in  respect  to  the  other  party,  the  act  of  the  whole  ;  and 
Mr.  Adams  himself  acknowledges  that  "  it  would  have  been  equally 
valid  without  my  concurrence  or  signature  as  with  it."  In  his 
opinion,  therefore,  it  would  have  been  useless,  and  in  mine,  for  the 
reasons  just  stated,  it  would  have  been  highly  mischievous,  to  have 
notoriously  refused  my  acquiescence  in  the  will  of  the  majority. 
For  what  is  called  assent,  concurrence,  and  joining  in  the  offer,  was 
merely  an  acquiescence  in  that  will.  For  such  an  acquiescence  I 
have  long  since  accounted  to  my  conscience,  and  now  cheerfully 
account  to  my  country.  By  the  principles  of  our  institutions  the 
minority,  though  free  to  disapprove  the  acts  of  the  majority,  are 
bound  to  submit  to  them.  If  Mr.  Adams  dues  not  agree  with  me 
in  this  view  of  the  rights  and  duties  of  a  minority,  ho  will  only 
present  another  in«tanr.p  in  whiH*  w«*  difi««r  from  each  other  ID 
•pinion. 


132 


in  my  letter  ;"  and,  if  I  did  not  disclose  them  "  to  the  same  extent," 
I  did  state  them  with  sufficient  precision  and  perspicuity  to  entitle 
them  to  all  the  consideration  which  they  might  deserve. 

Mr.  Adams  charges  me  with  ascribing  to  my  colleagues  opinions 
which  they  never  entertained,  arguments  which  they  never  ad 
vanced,  and  doctrines  which  they  not  only  would  disclaim  with  in 
dignation,  but  diametrically  opposed  to  those  which  they  did  main 
tain.  Let  it  be  remembered  here  that  my  letter  received  from 
Paris  was  confined,  in  justification  of  my  conduct,  to  combating  the 
opinions,  arguments,  and  doctrines  of  the  majority,  which,  in  the 
despatch  of  the  25th  of  December,  1814  (d)  were  stated  by  them, 
or  at  least  by  Mr.  Adams,  for  that  despatch  was  drawn  up  by  hirn. 
Mr.  Gallatin,  indeed,  in  his  separate  letter  of  the  same  date,  (c) 
does  not  go  to  the  same  extent.  He  merely  states  the  assumption 
of  the  peculiarity  of  the  treaty  of  1783. 

To  support  this  charge,  Mr.  Adams  says  I  impute  to  my  col 
leagues  an  opinion  that  the  Independence  of  the  United  States  was 
derived  from  the  treaty  of  1783. 

In  what  part  of  my  letter  he  finds  such  an  imputation  I  am  at  a 
loss  to  discover.  In  contending  against  any  peculiarity  of  that  treaty, 
I  simply  said  "  I  could  not  believe  that  the  Independence  of  the 
United  States  was  derived  from  the  treaty  of  1783."  Without  admit 
ting  such  a  derivation  of  our  Independence,  I  could  not  perceive, 
indeed,  any  ground  for  the  peculiarity  ascribed  to  that  treaty  ;  for  a 
mere  recognition  of  a  prior  right  furnished  none  ;  no  other  treaty 
containing  such  recognition  having  been  considered  as  possessing  it. 
In  denying  such  a  derivation,  although  fairly  inferrable  from  the 
doctrine  of  Mr.  Adams,  I  charged  no  one  with  believing  in  it,  but 
I  removed  the  only  foundation,  as  I  conceived,  on  which  the  doc 
trine  of  Mr.  Adams  could  be  supported  ;  and  now,  in  disclaiming 
that  foundation,  unless  he  can  show  a  better,  he  virtually  renounces 
that  doctrine. 

He  says,  also,  that  I  impute  to  my  colleagues  "  that  they  rested 
their  claim  to  the  fishing  privilege  on  prescription  ;"  but  he  adds 
that,"  as  the  settlement  of  the  colonies  themselves  had  not  been 
of  time  immemorial,  it  was  not,  and  never  was  pretended  to  be  a 
title  by  prescription."  This  appears  to  have  been  a  recent  dis 
covery.  In  the  letter  of  the  25th  of  December,  above  mentioned, 
it  is  said,  "  this  liberty,  then,"  (1783)  "  no  new  grant,  but  a  mere 
recognition  of  a  prior  right  always  enjoyed."  And  again,  in  the 
same  letter,  "  without  adverting  to  the  ground  of  prior  and  imme 
morial  usage,"  &c.  If  I  erroneously  inferred  from  these  passages 
that  a  title  was  claimed  from  prescription,  my  error,  I  trust,  will 
be  considered  a  venial  one.  Mr.  Adams  can  undoubtedly  explain 
what  he  meant  by  **  a  prior  right,  always  enjoyed,"  and  by  "  the 
ground  of  prior  and  immemorial  usage."  He  did  not  mean,  it 


133 

&eem?,  any  thing  like  prescription.  Is  he  quite  sure  that,  in  dis 
cussing  this  privilege,  while  in  England,  in  1815  or  1816,  he 
never  set  up  a  prescriptive  title,  or  a  title  from  immemorial  usage  ? 

Mr.  Adams  likewise  asserts  that  I  represent  **  the  offer  of  an  ar 
ticle,  granting  to  the  British  the  right  of  navigating  the  Mississippi, 
as  an  equivalent  for  the  fishing  privilege  in  British  jurisdiction." 
I  certainly  believed  that  it  might  have  been  so  interpreted,  even  in 
its  original  form  ;  and  that,  if  so  interpreted,  it  could  be  made  to 
mean  more  than  would  be  meant  by  a  simple  continuance  of  that 
right,  and  of  that  privilege,  as  they  stood,  independently  of  each 
other,  in  the  treaty  of  1783.  That  the  navigation  of  the  Missis 
sippi  was,  at  last,  offered,  not  under  the  principle  of  Mr.  Adams, 
or  the  status  ante  helium,  which  thus  far  were  the  same,  but  as  an 
equivalent,  sufficiently  appears  from  the  documents,  notwithstand 
ing  the  subsequent  intimation  that  "  we  considered  that  offer  as 
merely  declaratory"  Besides,  Mr.  Gallatin,  in  his  separate  letter 
of  the  25th  of  December,  says,  "  if  the  right  must  be  considered 
as  abrogated  by  the  war,  we  cannot  regain  it  without  an  equivalent. 
We  had  none  to  offer  but  the  recognition  of  the  right  to  navigate 
the  Mississippi,  and  we  offered  it." 

I  have  now,  I  trust,  satisfactorily  explained  the  inconsistencies 
and  tissue  of  misrepresentations  with  which  Mr.  Adams  has,  with 
so  much  dignity  and  propriety,  charged  me.  To  whom  inconsis 
tency  and  misrepresentation  can  be  justly  imputed  an  impartial 
public  is  left  to  decide. 

With  regard  to  what  is  considered  so  serious  an  offence,  my  not 
having  shown  my  letter,  written  at  Paris,  to  my  colleagues,  at  the 
time,  I  will  merely  observe  that  the  majority  had  already,  in  the 
despatch  of  the  25th  of  December,  (d)  given  their  reasons  for  the 
affirmative,  without  taking  any  notice  of  the  reasons  on  which  the 
minority  supported  the  negative.  I  believed  it  just,  therefore,  to 
account  for  rny  conduct,  by  stating  my  objections  to  the  reasons  as 
signed  by  the  majority,  and  to  these  objections  my  letter  was  con 
fined.  I  imputed  to  the  majority  nothing  which  they  had  not 
alleged  for  themselves.  Their  case  was  before  the  government  on 
their  own  showing,  and  I  did  not  believe  that  there  was  any  obli 
gation  to  consult  them  on  the  case  of  the  minority.  To  the  only 
member  of  the  mission  who  had  a  direct  interest  in  that  case,  I  did 
show,  at  the  time,  the  letter  written  at  Paris.  I  certainly  was  not 
aware  of  the  proprienty  or  etiquette  of  communicating  a  private 
or  separate  letter  to  my  colleagues,  particularly  as  their  private  or 
separate  letters  had  not  been  communicated  to  me.  That  they 
did  occasionally  write  such  letters  is  not  only  probable,  but  the  let 
ter  of  Mr.  Gallatin,  of  the  25th  of  December,  furnishes  proof  in 
point.  That  letter  of  Mr.  Gallatin  was  never  shown  to  me,  and  I 
certainly  never  felt  myself  aggrieved  because  it  was  not,  although 
he  stated  in  it  the  grounds  in  which  he  had  acted  as  one  of  the  ma 
jority. 

J  here  most  solemnly  protest,  as  Mr.  Adams  appears  to  believe 

17 


a  protest  to  be  neeesary  to  prove  sincerity,  that  nothing  whieli  I 
have  written  was  directly  or  remotely  intended  to  impute  either 
weakness,  absurdity,  or  treachery,  to  the  majority,  and  to  infer 
such  an  imputation  from  my  letter  would  seem  to  require  a  mind 
distorted  by  passion  and  a  "  jealousy  that  discolours  every  thing.'* 

There  was  a  difference,  and  I  believe,  an  honest  difference  of 
opinion  between  me  and  some  of  my  colleagues,  on  certain  points, 
and  if  I  felt  it  to  be  my  duty  to  act  according  to  my  own,  I  certainly 
had  the  right  to  state  the  grounds  of  my  opinion  to  those  to  whom 
I  was  immediately  accountable  for  my  conduct.  In  doing  this,  I 
accused  no  one — and  if  in  endeavouring  to  prove  that  my  opinion 
was  correct,  I  implied  that  the  opinion  of  those  who  differed  from 
me  was  incorrect,  I  did  no  more  towards  them,  than  what,  from  the 
very  nature  of  the  case,  was  indispensable,  or  than  what  they,  in 
defending  their  opinion,,  must  necessarily  have  done  towards  me. 
Mr.  Adams,  indeed,  goes  much  further.  He  appears  to  believr 
that  self-vindication  cannot  be  separated  from  reproach.  In  a  con 
scientious  difference  of  opinion  between  fallible  men,  who  reason 
but  to  err,  there  can  be  no  just  cause  for  reproach  ;,  but  a  pretend 
ed  difference  of  opinion  between  infallible  men  must  necessarily 
imply  wilful  error  somewhere.  1  do  not  pretend  to  infallibility, 
and  sincerely  pity  those  who  do.  It  may  be  less  difficult  to  some 
minds  to  abuvse  the  man,  than  to  refute  the  argument.  "  Censure, 
reproach,  and  rmsrepresentatiou  is,  indeed,  a  shorter  and  easier 
process  " 

I  still  differ  with  Mr.  Adams  on  his  doctrine  that  the  treaty  of 
1783,  by  reason  of  its  peculiarity,  could  not  be  abrogated  by  war. 

I  still  differ  with  him  concerning  the  relative  value  of  the  navi 
gation  of  the  Mississippi  and  the  fishing  privilege. 

I  still  differ  with  him,  in  respect  to  the  consistency  of  his  prin 
ciple  with  the  proposal  which  was  first  decided  on,  and  after  a  pe 
riod  of  three  weeks,  actually  offered  by  a  majority. 

I  shall  probably  continue  to  differ  with  him  on  these  points,  un 
less  he  can  produce  other  and  better  reasons  for  my  conversion- 
than  those  contained  in  his  remarks. 

For  his  doctrine,  be  appeals  to  a  class  of  treaties  which  are  not 
known  to  exist,  and  to  the  ordeal  of  minds  with  which  he  has  not 
made  us  acquainted.  He  relies  on  instinct  when  he  says  "  I  stop 
here  for  a  moment  to  observe  how  instinctively  both  parties  recur 
to  the  treaty  of  1783,  with  a  consciousness  that  it  was  yet  in  full 
force"  when-  at  the  very  'first  conference  the  British  ministers  gave 
us  notice  that  the  fishing  privilege,  granted  by  that  treaty,  would 
not  be  renewed,  without  an  equivalent,  thus  considering  thattreatv 
to  be  at  an  end. 

Express  renunciation  or  conquest,  that  is,  consent  on  our  part 
or  force  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  might,  according  to  Mr. 
Adams  himself,  abrogate  our  rights  under  the  treaty  of  1783;  and 
these  are  precisely  the  means  only  by  which  we  can  be  deprived 
<>f  our  rights  under  any  treat/.  The  peculiarity  ^  therefore*  for 


135 

which  Mr.  Adams  contends,  is  left  on  a  very  equivocal  foundation. 
Mr.  Adams  insinuates  that  the  convention  of  1818  confirms  his 
doctrine,  and  gives  a  tinal  stroke  to  mine.  That  convention  does 
not  contain  the  slightest  allusion  to  the  doctrine  of  Mr.  Adams,  nor 
even  to  the  treaty  of  1783,  but  settles  the  differences  which  had 
arisen  on  the  subject  by  a  grant  entirely  new. 

By  the  way,  if  an  express  renunciation  was  necessary,  on  our 
part,  to  surrender  the  fishing  privilege,  the  implicit  renunciation 
which  Mr.  Adams  says  was  made  by  the  British,  cannot  be  suffi 
cient  to  surrender  their  right  to  navigate  the  Mississippi — accord 
ing  to  Mr.  Adams,  therefore,  that  right  is  unimpaired. 

I  certainly  was  not  willing  to  renounce  or  to  surrender  the  fishing 
privilege  to  force  or  conquest,  but  I  was  willing  to  adopt  a  doctrine 
which  1  believed,  and  still  believe,  to  be  the  true  one  ;  and  which, 
if  it  deprived  us  of  the  benefit  of  the  fishing  privilege,  released  us 
at  the  same  time  from  the  evils  of  the  British  right  to  navigate 
the  Mississippi,  because  I  believed  those  evils  outweighed  that  be- 
ziefit.  I  have  seen  no  cause  since  to  change  this  opinion. 

All  that  Mr.  Adams  says,  in  his  remarks  concerning  the  fishing 
privilege,  is  "  that  we  had  renounced  certain  parts,  which  without 
being  of  much  use  to  ourselves,  had  been  found  very  inconvenient 
to  the  British  ;  and  that  my  views  with  regard  to  the  magnitude  of 
the  fishing  interest,  he  believes  to  be  as  incorrect  as  my  principles 
on  which  1  would  have  surrendered  it.  If  I  erred  in  my  estimate 
of  the  fishing  privilege,  there  is  nothing  in  these  remarks  of  Mr. 
Adams  to  demonstrate  my  error.  I  acted  on  the  best  information 
which  I  had  at  the  time.  And,  if  I  erred,  my  error  could  not  de 
serve  reproach.  I  believe,  however,  that  the  views,  disclosed  in 
rny  letter,  did  notjunderrate  or  depreciate  that  privilege.  The  most 
authentic  information  which  I  have  until  now  been  able  to  obtain 
on  the  subject,  justifies  the  opinion  which  I  then  entertained  in  re 
lation  to  it.  I  am  informed  by  respectable  citizens  well  acquainted 
with  the  business,  that  few  or  no  fish  are  now  dried  or  cured  within 
the  British  jurisdiction,  and  that  most,  if  not  all  that  are  taken 
there,  are  taken  by  the  few  fishermen  who  have  not  sufficient  capi 
tal  to  procure  vessels  of  adequate  size  and  strength  to  fish  on  the 
grand  banks  or  in  the  open  sea  ;  and  that  even  those  few  fishermen 
are  annually  decreasing  in  number. 

With  regard  to  the  British  right  to  navigate  the  Mississippi,  MrT 
Adams  says  that  it  was  a  mere  phantom — that  they  had  enjoyed  it  for 
30 years  without  using  \i — thatin  all  human  probability  it  never  would 
have  been  of  more  beneficial  use  to  the  British  nation  than  would 
be  to  the  people  of  the  United  States  the  right  of  navigating  the 
Bridgewater  Canal  or  the  Danube  ;  and  that,  in  surrendering  it, 
the  British  would  have  surrendered  absolutely  nothing.  Although 
all  this  was  not  said  at  Ghent  to  the  same  extent,  yet  Mr.  Adams  cer 
tainly  did  express  there  his  great  contempt  of  the  British  right  to 
reach  and  navigate  thai  river.  1  have  good  reason  to  believe,  how* 
qver.  that  there  was  not  another  member  of  the  mission  who  en-. 


136 

tcrtained  the  same  opinion.  Each  member  estimated  differently 
the  importance  of  that  right  according  to  his  own  information  and 
impressions.  Some  believed  it  to  be  of  more  importance — some 
of  less  importance,  and  some  of  about  the  same  importance,  as  the 
fishing  privilege,  but  not  one,  excepting  Mr.  Adams,  considered  it 
a  mere  phantom,  worth  absolutely  nothing.  Mr.  Gallatin  appears 
to  have  thought  it  equal,  at  least,  to  the  fishing  privilege.  In  his 
separate  letter,  already  mentioned,  (c)  he  says  "  if  the  right"  (the 
fishing  privilege)  "  must  be  considered  as  abrogated  by  the  war, 
we  cannot  regain  it  without  an  equivalent.  We  had  none  to  offer 
but  the  recognition  of  their  right  to  navigate  the  Mississippi,  and 
we  offered  it.  On  this  last  supposition,"  (the  abrogation  of  the 
treaty  of  1783,  by  war)  "  this  right  is  also  lost  to  them,  and  in  a 
general  point  of  view  we  have  certainly  lost  nothing."  The  neces 
sary  construction  of  this  clause  is,  that,  by  abrogating  the  Missis 
sippi  right,  we  gained  as  much  as  we  lost  by  abrogating  the  fishing 
privilege — and  thus,  in  a  general  point  of  view  we  have  lost  nothing 
by  abrogating  both;  thus  making  the  two  of  equal  value. 

I  certainly  differed  very  much  from  Mr.  Adams  in  his  estimate 
of  this  right  under  his  doctrine,  united  with  his  construction,  or 
under  his  proposal.  I  did  not  appreciate  it  by  the  mere  beneficial 
or  legitimate  uses  that  might  be  made  of  it.  Its  importance  I  con 
sidered  to  be  derived  from  its  evils — from  the  abuse  of  it,  and  from 
the  pernicious  facility  which  it  would  afford  to  British  smugglers 
and  British  emissaries — to  defraud  the  revenue  and  to  excite  the 
Indians.  If  our  instructions,  of  the  15th  of  April,  1813,  had  been 
no  longer  imperative,  they  furnished,  at  least,  evidence  in  point, 
which  was  entitled  to  attention.  The  privilege  of  British  traders 
from  Canada,  and  the  Northwest  Company,  were  not  to  be  renewed, 
because  "  the  pernicious  effects  of  this  privilege  had  been  most  sensi 
bly  felt  in  the  present  war,  by  the  influence  which  it  gave  over  our 
Indians,  whose  whole  force  has  been  wielded  by  means  thereof  against 
the  inhabitants  of  our  western  States  and  Territories. 

We  ourselves  had  borne  testimony,  during  the  negotiation,  to 
the  magnitude  of  the  evil  resulting  from  allowing  to  British  traders 
and  agents  access  to  our  Indians.  In  our  note  to  the  British  minis 
ters  of  the  21st  of  September,  1814,  we  say,  "  The  undersigned 
very  sincerely  regret  to  be  obliged  to  say  that  an  irresistible  mas* 
of  evidence,  consisting  principally  of  the  correspondence  of  British 
officers  and  agents,  part  only  of  which  has  already  been  published 
in  America,  establishes,  beyond  all  rational  doubt,  the  fact  that  a 
constant  system  of  excitement  to  these  hostilities  was  pursued  by 
British  Traders  and  Agents,  who  had  access  to  our  Indians,  not  only 
without  being  discountenanced,  but  with  frequent  encouragement 
by  the  British  authorities.  And  if  they  had  ever  dissuaded  the 
Indians  from  commencing  hostilities,  it  was  only  by  advising  them, 
as  in  prudence,  to  suspend  their  attacks  until  Great  Britain  could 
recognise  them  in  the  war." 

Here  was  surely  evidence  to  prove  the  danger  of  giving  to  Brr- 


137 

tish  Traders  and  Agents  access  to  our  Indians.  If  this  access, 
owing  to  existing  circumstances,  had  not  hitherto,  to  any  great  ex 
tent,  been  practically  derived  from  the  right' to  approach  and  to 
navigate  the  Mississippi,  yet  this  tight,  having  become  the  only 
means  of  access,  would  undoubtedly  have  been  made  the  thorough 
fare  of  this  nefarious  intercouse.  If  1  erred  in  this  opinion,  still 
I  should  hope  to  find  charity  for  my  motives.  As  a  citizen  of  Mas* 
sachusetts,  i  believed  that  justice  and  sound  policy  required  that 
we  should  treat  fairly  and  liberally  every  other  section  of  the 
Union,  and  to  do  as  we  would  be  done  by.  As  a  minister  of  the 
United  States,  it  was  my  duty  to  act  impartially  towards  the  great 
whole. 

The  inconsistency  of  Mr.  Adams'  doctrine  with  his  conduct,  in 
relation  to  the  fishing  liberty,  needs  no  illustration.  If  that  liberty 
was,  as  he  alleged,  inseparable  from  the  general  right,  why  sepa 
rate  them,  by  offering  a  specific  proposition  for  the  one,  and  leav 
ing  the  other  to  rest  on  the  treaty  of  1783  ?  If  this  liberty  was,  by 
our  instructions,  included  in  the  right,  why  discuss  it,  as  those  in 
structions  forbid  us  to  bring  that  right  into  discussion  ?  If  {his 
liberty  was  an  attribute  of  our  Independence,  why  rely  for  its 
continuance  on  the  peculiarity  of  a  treaty,  and  at  the  same  time 
offer  to  make  it  an  article  of  another  treaty,  where  there  could  be 
no  such  peculiarity  to  perpetuate  it  ?  If  that  liberty  was  indeed 
an  attribute  of  our  Independence,  1  say  that  it  depended  on  no 
treaty,  but  on  those  eternal  principles  on  which  it  had  been  de 
clared  previous  to  any  treaty — and  on  that  high  spirit  and  resistless 
energy  which  dictated  and  accomplished  that  declaration.  When- 
ever  that  Independence,  or  any  of  the  essential  attributes  of  the 
sovereignty,  which  necessarily  results  from  it,  shall  be  denied  or 
questioned,  I  trust  in  God  and  the  valour,  not  of  the  West  only, 
but  of  all,  that  we  shall  not  resort  to  the  dreams  of  a  visionary,  or 
to  the  dead  letter  of  a  treaty,  to  assert  our  rights  and  rank  among 
the  nations  of  the  world. 

I  shall  now  close  this  defence  against  an  unprovoked  and  unprin 
cipled  attack,  trusting  it,  for  my  vindication,  with  the  justice  and 
liberality  of  my  fellow  citizens.  If  I  had  been  previously  entrust 
ed  with  the  remarks  of  Mr.  Adams,  as  he  frankly  was  with  the 
paper  which  has  mainly  been  the  subject  of  them,  I  should  have 
had  an  opportunity  of  simultaneously  offering  these  explanations, 
and  been  spared  the  unpleasant  necessity  of  thus  appealing  to  the 
public.  If  I  have  not  retorted  the  virulence  and  acrimony  of  Mr. 
Adams,  it  is  because  I  have  not  felt  them  sufficiently  to  forget  the 
respect  which  I  owe  to  myself  and  to  the  public.  I  regret,  equally 
with  Mr.  Adams,  the  necessity  which  he  has  supposed  to  exist  for 
the  virulent  character  of  his  remarks,  but  I  shall  have  abundant 
reason  to  rejoice,  if,  in  directing  the  infirmities  of  his  temper  against 
me,  they  shall  have  been  diverted  from  a  course  in  which  they 
might  have  been  disastrous  to  the  country. 

JONATHAN  RUSSELL. 


138 


.£/  o/;i  (fie  National  Intdli.gencc.r  of  July  17,  1825. 
MR.  ADAMS'  REJOINDER  TO  MR.  RUSSELL. 

Mr.  Jonathan  Russell  having  thought  proper  to  transfer  the  scene 
of  his  attack  upon  the  character  and  conduct  of  his  colleagues,  the 
majority  of  the  late  mission  to  Ghent,  and  especially  upon  mine, 
from  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States,  where  he 
first  volunteered  to  bring  it  forward,  to  the  newspapers,  it  becomes 
necessary  for  my  defence,  and  that  of  my  colleagues,  against  this 
assault,  to  apply  to  his  new  statements  and  representations  a  few  of 
those  "  correctives"  which,  at  the  call  of  the  House  of  Represent 
atives,  I  did  apply  to  the  original  and  duplicate  of  his  letter  of 
llth  February,  1815. 

The  paper  published  by  Mr.  Russell  in  the  Boston  Statesman,  of 
the  27th  of  June  last,  bears  the  same  relation  to  truth  that  his  ori 
ginal  letters  bear  to  their  duplicates,  and  his  sentiments  to  hu> 
signatures. 

Nearly  two  columns  of  the  paper  published  in  the  Boston  States 
man,  are  occupied  with  a  narrative  of  circumstances  which  preced 
ed,  attended,  and  followed,  the  delivery,  by  Mr.  Russell,  at  the 
Department  of  State,  on  the  22d  of  April  last,  of  the  paper  pur 
porting  to  be  a  duplicate  of  his  letter  of  1 1  th  February,  1815,  from 
Paris,  to  the  then  Secretary  of  State.  In  the  course  of  this  narra 
tive,  Mr.  Russell  makes  the  following  admission  ;  how  reluctantly, 
the  very  structure  of  the  sentence  in  which  it  is  contained,  will 
show  ;  and  it  is  proper  that  it  should  be  exhibited  in  his  own  words  : 

*'  I  certainly  did  believe  that  I  was  permitted  to  make  those  cor- 
"  rections  of  the  copy  in  possession,  which  appeared  to  me  to  be 
"  proper  to  exhibit  my  case  most  advantageously  before  thuttribu- 
"  nal" — [the  tribunal  of  the  public.] 

The  reasons  of  iVIr.  Russell  for  believing  that  he  was  permitted, 
m  1822,  to  make  corrections  which  happened  to  suit  his  own  pur 
poses,  in  a  paper  furnished  by  himself  to  be  communicated  to  the 
House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States,  as  a  specific  letter 
written  by  him  in  Paris,  in  the  year  1815,  are  as  singular  and  sur 
prising  as  the  belief  itself.  They  consist  of  insinuations  and  infer 
ences  that  he  had  furnished  the  paper  at  my  solicitation  ;  that  the 
word  "duplicate,"  written  upon  it,  with  his  own  hand,  gave  no 
further  intimation  or  assurance  that  it  was  so  ;  that  1  had  the  sole 
power  to  publish  it  or  not,  as  1  might  judge  proper,  and  to  consult 
my  own  feelings  and  interests  in  forming  my  decision  ;  and  that  the 
paper  was  not  to  be  exhibited  to  the  public  without  the  previous 
examination  and  consent  of  the  ADVERSE  PARTY.  And  with  these 
ingenious  principles,  he  has  interwoven  a  statement  of  facts,  with 
which  he  has  believed  himself  permitted  to  take  the  same  liberty 
that  he  had  taken  with  his  own  letter  ;  making  in  them  those  cor 
rections  which  appeared  to  him  necessary  to  exhibit  his  case  moe* 
advantageously  before  the  tribunal  of  the  public. 


139 

Frail  and  tottering  as  is  this  scaffolding  (o  support  the  cause  oi' 
>Tr.  Russell's  candour.  I  am  concerned  to  say,  that  by  a  mere  state 
ment  of  the  real  facts,  it  must  be  taken  entirely  from  under  him. 

The  real  facts  are  these  : 

On  the  17th  of  January  last,  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
United  States  adopted  the  following  resolution  : 

"  Resolved,  That  the  President  of  the  United  States  be  requested  to  cause  tu 
s<  be  laid  before  this  House,  all  the  correspondence  which  led  to  the  Treaty  of" 
•'  Ghent,  together  with  the  Protocol,  which  has  not  been  made  public,  and 
•'  which,  in  his  opinion,  it  may  not  be  improper  to  disclose." 

In  the  ordinary  course  of  business,  this  resolution  was  by  t,h£ 
President  referred  to  the  Department  of  State,  to  report  the  papers 
to  be  communicated  to  the  House,  in  compliance  with  the  call. 

In  examining  among  the  archives  of  the  Department  for  those 
papers,  I  found  among  them  a  short  letter  from  Mr.  Russell  to  the 
Secretary  of  State,  dated  the  25th  of  December,  1814,  the  day  after 
the  signature  of  the  treaty.  It  was  not  marked  private,  but  it  re 
lated  principally  to  Mr.  Russell's  own  affairs  ;  and,  referring  to  the 
joint  letter  of  the  mission,  of  the  same  25th  of  December,  1814,  in 
which  it  had  been  stated  that  a  majority  of  it  had  determined  to  offer 
to  the  British  an  article  confirming  the  navigation  of  the  Mississip 
pi  to  the  British,  and  the  fisheries  to  us,  as  stipulated  in  the  treaty 
<yf  1783,  it  acknowledged,  IN  CANDOUR,  that  he,  (Mr.  Russell,)  was 
in  the  minority  on  that  occasion,  and  reserved  to  himself  the  power 
of  communicating  thereafter  his  reasons  for  being  in  the  minority. 

With  Mr.  Russell's  candour  in  the  transaction,  at  the  time,  I  shall 
not  now  trouble  the  public.  It  was  in  the  examination  of  the  files 
for  the  purpose  of  answering  the  call  of  the  House,  that  I  first  dis 
covered  the  existence  of  this  letter  ;  and  a  question  occurred  tome 
whether  it  should  be  communicated  with  the  other  documents  to 
the  House  or  not.  It  was  not  strictly  within  the  letter  of  the  call, 
for  it  was  not  a  part  of  the  correspondence  which  led  to  the  treaty 
— having  been  written  the  day  after  the  treaty  was  signed.  It  had 
no  bearing  upon  the  information  which  had  been  assigned  to  the 
House  as  the  motive  for  the  call  ;  and  the  only  fact  relating  to  the 
negotiation  which  it  communicated,  was,  that  upon  one  vote  which 
had  been  taken  in  the  joint  mission  during  the  negotiation,  and  that 
vote  upon  a  question  whether  an  offer  should  be  made,  which, 
when  made,  had  been  rejected,  Mr.  Russell  had  been  in  the  mi 
nority,  and  reserved  to  himself  the  power  of  assigning  his  reason*, 
thereafter,  for  the  purpose  of  vindicating  his  motives.  It  was  doubt 
ful  whether  it  would  be  proper  to  disclose  this  difference  of  opinion, 
and  Mr.  Russell's  solicitude  to  vindicate  his  motives  for  voting 
against  a  rejected  offer,  which  had  terminated  in  nothing.  But,  out 
the  other  hand,  this  might  be,  of  all  the  documents  relating  to  the 
negotiation,  the* most  desirable  one  to  the  purposes  for  which  the 
call  had  been  made.  The  call  might  have  been  made  with  the 
special  intention  of  eliciting  this  letter,  or  the  disclosure  of  the  fact 
which  it  attested.  To  have  withheld  the  letter  might  have  give* 


140 

rise  to  surmises  of  special  motives  for  veiling  from  the  eye  of  Con 
gress,  and  of  the  nation,  the  discovery  of  that  fact.  As  Mr.  Rus 
sell  was  upon  the  spot,  and  a  member  of  the  House,  I  determined 
to  mention  the  letter  to  him,  and  place  it  at  his  option  whether  it 
should  be  communicated  to  the  House  or  not.  I  did  so,  at  my 
house,  as  he  has  stated  ;  and  it  was  on  the  26th  of  January  But 
Mr.  Russell  did  not  say  that  he  had  no  distinct  recollection  of  the 
letter,  to  which  1  alluded,  and  that  he  wished  to  see  it  before  he 
gave  his  consent  to  its  publication.  I  had  not  asked  his  consent  to 
its  publication.  I  had  told  him  there  was  such  a  letter  ;  and  left 
it  at  his  option  whether  it  should  be  communicated  in  the  answer 
to  the  call  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  or  not.  His  tirst  re 
ply  was,  that  he  thought  it  was  a  private  letter,  which  it  would  be 
improper  to  communicate  to  the  House  ;  but,  after  a  pause,  as  if 
recollecting  himself,  he  said  he  wished  to  see  the  letter,  before  giv 
ing  a  definitive  answer.  To  this  I  immediately  assented.  Mr. 
Russell  accordingly  repaired  to  the  office,  and  saw  his  letter  ;  not 
in  my  presence,  or  in  the  room  occupied  by  me,  but  in  that  of  Mr. 
Bailey,  the  clerk  who  has  charge  of  the  diplomatic  documents. 
Mr.  Russell  then  desired  to  examine  the  whole  of  the  correspond 
ence  relating  to  the  Ghent  negotiation,  and  afterwards  twice  in  suc 
cession  requested  to  be  furnished  with  copies  of  one  paragraph  of 
the  instructions  to  the  commissioners,  of  15th  April,  1813.  That 
paragraph  is  the  one  which,  in  the  duplicate,  is  cited  so  emphatic 
ally,  and  with  so  many  cumulative  epithets,  in  support  of  the  charge 
against  the  majority  of  the  mission,  of  having  violated  both  the  let 
ter  and  the  spirit  of  their  explicit  and  implicit  instructions.  After' 
all  these  examinations,  and  after  a  request  to  be  furnished  with  a 
eopy  of  this  most  pregnant  paragraph,  in  all  of  which  he  was  in 
dulged  to  the  extent  of  his  wishes,  he  told  me  that  he  saw  no  ob 
jection  to  the  communication  to  the  House  of  his  separate  letter 
of  25th  December,  1814  ;  with  the  exception  of  a  part  of  it,  not 
relating  to  the  negotiation.  He  was  informed  that  the  part  only  in 
dicated  by  himself  would  be  communicated  ;  and  accordingly  that 
part  only  was  communicated.  Mr.  Russell  then  added,  that  there 
was  another  letter,  written  at  Paris,  conformably  to  the  indication 
in  that  of  25th  December,  1814,  and  containing  his  reasons  therein 
alluded  to  ;  and  which  he  wished  might  also  be  communicated  with 
the  rest  of  the  documents,  to  the  House.  This  was  the  first  intima 
tion  I  had  ever  received  of  the  existence  of  the  letter  of  1 1th  Fe 
bruary,  1815;  arid  I  told  Mr.  Russell  that,  if  it  could  be  found  up 
on  the  files  of  the  Department,  it  should  be  communicated  with 
the  rest.  I  directed,  accordingly,  that  search  should  be  made,  and 
afterwards  that  it  should  be  repeated,  among  all  the  files  of  the 
Department,  for  this  letter.  It  was  nut  to  be  found.  After  a  delay 
of  several  days,  for  repeating  these  ineffectual  searches,  I  deemed 
it  necessary  to  report,  in  answer  to  the  call  of  the  House  ;  and  the 
documents  were  all  sent,  including  that  portion  of  his  letter  of  25th 
December.,  1814,  which  he  himself  had  marked  for  communication*. 


Ill 

It  was  not  alone  to  me  that  Mr.  Russell  had  expressed  the  wish 
that  his  letter  of  1 1th  February,  1815,  might  be  communicated 
with  the  other  documents  to  the  House.  He  had,  as  appears  by 
the  statement  of  Mr.  Bailey,  repeatedly  manifested  the  same  wish 
to  him.  He  had  even  gone  so  far  as  to  inform  him,  that  he  had  a 
copy  of  it  at  Mendon,  and  to  inquire  of  him  whether  a  copy  of  it 
from  himself  would  be  received  at  the  Department,  for  communi 
cation  to  the  House.  He  did  not,  indeed,  make  the  same  inquiry  of 
me,  nor  was  I  then  informed  that  he  had  made  it  to  Mr.  Bailey.  If 
I  had  been,  I  should  have  immediately  answered  that  it  would  be 
received  and  communicated.  I  knew  not  what  were  the  contents 
of  the  letter  :  but  I  knew  that,  whatever  they  might  be,  I  could 
have  no  objection  to  their  being  communicated,  at  the  desire  of  Mr. 
Russell  himself;  and  far  from  suspecting  him  capable  of  believing 
himself  permitted  to  make  any  alterations  in  the  copy,  to  suit  pre 
sent  purposes,  I  should  have  thought  the  bare  suspicion  an  outrage 
upon  his  honour. 

But  1  had  no  desire  of  my  own  that  the  letter  should  be  commu 
nicated.  I  regretted  even  that  Mr.  Russell  had  chosen  that  the 
part  of  his  letter  of  25th  December,  1814,  which  announced  his 
disagreement  with  the  majority  of  the  mission,  should  be  commu 
nicated.  I  regretted  that  he  had  ever  thought  proper  to  inform 
the  Secretary  of  State  what  had  been  his  vote  upon  that  occasion  ; 
and  I  was  perfectly  assured,  that  there  never  had  existed  a  moment 
when  there  could  have  been  any  necessity  for  him  to  vindicate  his 
motives  for  that  vote.  I  was  assured  that  neither  the  government 
nor  the  nation  would  ever  have  inquired  of  him  how  he  had  voted, 
if  he  had  not  been  so  over-earnest  in  his  solicitude  to  tell  them. 
And  I  was  equally  convinced,  that  after  he  had  told  them,  it  would 
not  ultimately  redound  to  his  credit.  I  had  no  feelings  of  enu.ity 
towards  Mr.  Russell.  Our  private  intercourse  had  been,  for  more 
than  ten  years,  that  of  friendship,  which,  in  no  instance  whatever, 
had  been,  in  word,  deed,  or  thought,  violated  by  me.  As  an  asso 
ciate  in  a  trust  of  great  importance,  the  general  result  of  which  had 
been  satisfactory  to  the  country,  he  had  always  had  claims,  sacred 
to  me,  to  my  peculiar  regard  With  the  high  and  honourable  du 
ties  of  that  great  trust,  I  had  mingled  no  little  expedients  of  self- 
aggrandizement  by  the  debasement  of  any  of  my  colleagues.  I 
had  sown  no  seed  of  future  accusation  against  a  brother  commis 
sioner,  in  the  shell  of  a  pretended  vindication  of  myself.  I  had  laid 
up  no  root  of  rancorous  excitement,  to  be  planted,  after  the  lapse 
of  years,  in  the  soil  of  sectional  prejudice,  or  party  prepossession. 
I  lamented  to  discover  that  Mr.  Russell  had  not  so  dealt  with  his 
colleagues  of  the  majority  ;  and  I  was  mortified  to  see  the  earnest 
ness  with  which  he  appeared  determined  to  blazon  forth  this  dis 
agreement  of  opinion,  and  the  part  that  he  had  taken  in  it,  to  the 
world.  I  felt  that  it  neither  became  me  to  object  to  the  commu 
nication  of  either  of  his  letters  to  the  House,  if  desired  by  him, 
nor  officiously  to  offer  him  facilities  for  the  communication,  which 

18 


142 

ije  had  not  suggested  to  rne  himself.  I,  therefore,  did  not  ask  him 
to  furnish,  himself,  a  copy  of  his  letter  from  Paris,  to  be  communi 
cated  to  the  House  ;  but,  on  the  21st  of  February,  reported  to  the 
President,  for  communication  to  the  House,  all  the  other  docu 
ments,  embraced  by  their  call  of  the  17th  January  preceding. 

The  message  from  the  President  to  the  House,  communicating 
the  documents,  was  delivered  on  the  23d  of  February,  and  was  or 
dered  to  be  laid  on  the  table. 

On  the  19th  of  April,  the  following  resolution  was  adopted  by  the 
House,  having  been  first  moved  the  day  before :  . 

"  Resolved,  That  the  President  of  the  United  States  be  requested  to  cause  te 
be  communicated  to  this  House,  if  not  injurious  to  the  public  good,  any  letter, 
or  communication,  which  may  have  been  received  from  Jonathan  Russell,  Esq. 
one  of  the  Ministers  of  the  United  States  who  concluded  the  Treaty  of  Ghent, 
after  the  signature  of  that  Treaty,  and  which  was  written  in  conformity  to  the 
indications  contained  in  said  Minister's  letter,  dated  at  Ghent,  25th  December, 
1814." 

It  will  be  observed,  that  nearly  two  months  had  intervened  be 
tween  the  report  of  the  Ghent  treaty  documents  to  the  House,  and 
this  second  call,  which  Mr.  Russell  has  admitted  was  made  at  his 
suggestion. 

On  Saturday,  the  20th  of  April,  the  day  after  the  adoption  of  the 
resolution  of  the  House,  and  even  before  it  had  been  officially  re 
ferred  to  the  Department  for  an  answer,  Mr.  Daniel  Brent,  the 
chief  clerk  of  the  Department,  without  consulting  me,  but  knowing 
the  anxious  desire  that  I  should  feel,  of  being  enabled  to  report 
the  paper  called  for  by  the  House,  knowing  also  that  it  was  not 
upon  the  files  of  the  Department,  called  upon  Mr.  Russell, 'at  his 
lodgings,  and  inquired  of  frjm  whether  he  could  furnish  the  letter 
desired  ;  and  was  told  by  Mr.  Russell  that  he  could,  and  would  de 
liver  it  to  the  President.  Mr.  Brent,  it  seems,  suggested  that  it 
would  be  better  that  it  should  be  delivered  as  a  duplicate  than  as 
a  copy,  to  which  Mr.  Russell  assented.  This  distinction,  which  has 
reference  chiefly  to  the  forms  of  office,  would  not  have  occurred  to 
me.  Between  a  copy,  marked  as  such  by  the  writer,  signed  by  him, 
and  all  in  his  own  hand-writing,  and  a  duplicate,  furnished  as  such 
also  by  the  writer,  I  can  perceive  no  difference  of  substance, 
though,  as  evidence  in  a  court  of  justice,  or  as  a  document  in  the 
public  archives,  one  might  bear  the  character  of  an  original  paper., 
and  the  other  only  of  a  copy.  Mr.  Brent  had  too  much  respect  for 
Mr.  Russell,  to  imagine  it  possible,  whether  he  gave  the  paper  a? 
a  copy  or  as  a  duplicate,  that  he  should  give  it  other  than  as  the  let 
ter  originally  written,  and  called  for  by  the  resolution  of  the 
House. 

Mr.  Russell,  however,  did  assent  to  the  suggestion  of  Mr.  Brent? 
and,  with  his  own  hand,  wrote  the  word  "  duplicate"  on  the  paper, 
which  he  had  already  prepared  to  deliver,  to  be  reported  in  answer 
to  the  call  of  the  House.  He  did  more  :  he  erased  with  a  scraper 
the  word  "  cop}V  which  he  had  previously  written  in  its  stead, 
aiid  the  traces  of  which  are  still  discernible  on  the  paper. 


143 

What,  then,  does  Mr.  Russell  mean,  when,  in  the  Boston  States* 
man  of  27th  June  last,  he  says,  that  when  he  delivered  the  paper 
at  the  Department,  to  Mr.  Brent,  on  the  22d  of  April,  "  the  word 
**  [duplicate]  had  indeed  been  written  on  it,  in  consequence  of  his 
"suggestion,  as  above  stated:  but  1  gave  no  further  intimation) 
<l  muck  less  .any  assurance  that  it  was  so."  These  are  Mr.  Rus 
sell's  own  words  ;  and  what  can  they  mean  ?  They  have  been,  at 
least  by  some  portion  of  the  public,  understood  to  mean,  that  the 
paper  had  been  styled  a  duplicate,  not  by  Mr.  Russell,  but  by  rne. 
O  no  !  the  word  was  written  with  Mr  Russell's  own  hand  ;  ond 
when  I  received  the  paper  I  knew  not  that  there  ever  had  passed 
a  word  between  Mr.  Brent  and  him  whether  it  should  be  delivered 
as  a  duplicate  or  a  copy.  The  Boston  Statesman,  of  the  same  day 
in  which  his  reply  is  published,  says  "  Mr.  Russell,  without  much 
reflection,  consented"  (to  give  it  as  a  duplicate.)  1  should  think  he 
had  time  enough  for  reflection,  while  at  work  with  the  scraper,  to 
efface  the  word  4C  copy,"  for  which  it  was  substituted.  Mr.  Rus- 
seiFs  meaning  is,  therefore,  that,  although  he  wrote  the  word  du 
plicate  with  his  own  hand,  yet  he  did  not  intend  it  should  be  re 
ceived  as  an  intimation,  much  less  as  an  assurance,  "  THAT  IT 

\VAS  SO." 

Mr.  Russell  had  been  explicitly  told  by  Mr.  Brent,  that  his  call 
to  inquire  whether  he  could  furnish  the  paper  called  for  by  the  re 
solution  of  the  House,  had  not  been  at  my  desire,  or  with  my  know 
ledge,  but  of  his  own  motion.  But  it  seems  Mr.  Russell  did  not  be 
lieve  him  ;  and  instead  of  delivering  the  letter,  as  he  had  said  he 
would,  to  the  President,  he  brought  it  to  the  Department,  and  de 
livered  it  to  Mr.  Brent  himself ;  observing  that  he  was  indifferent 
whether  it  was  communicated  to  the  House  or  not  ;  but,  if  it  should 
not  be,  he  wished  it  might  be  returned  to  him. 

The  singularity  of  this  observation  is  not  among  the  least  extra* 
ordinary  incidents  of  this  transaction.  Mr.  Russell,  who,  while  the 
first  resolution  of  the  17th  of  January,  calling  for  the  Ghent  treaty 
documents,  was  to  be  reported  upon  by  the  Department  of  State, 
had  expressed  to  me,  and  repeatedly  to  Mr.  Bailey,  the  wish  that  his 
letter  from  Paris  should  be  communicated — Mr.  Russell,  at  whose 
suggestion  the  specific  call  from  the  House  of  the  19th  of  April, 
for  that  letter,  had  been  moved — Mr.  Russell,  who  in  the  interval 
had  written  to  Mendon  for  the  original  draft  of  his  letter,  had  re 
ceived  it  from  Mendon,  and  on  the  morning  after  the  resolution  of 
the  House  calling  for  it,  was  already  prepared  with  a  "  copy"  of  it 
to  deliver  to  the  President,  a  copy  consisting  of  seven  folio  sheets 
of  paper — transforms  this  copy,  at  the  suggestion  of  Mr.  Brent, 
into  a  duplicate,  and  after  having  again  on  Saturday  declared  to  Mr. 
Brent  his  wish  that  it  might  be  communicated  to  the  House,  brings 
it  on  Monday  morning  to  the  Department,  and  in  delivering  it  to 
Mr.  Brent,  says  he  is  indifferent  whether  it  should  be  communicat 
ed  to  the  House  or  not :  but,  if  not,  wishes  it  may  be  returned  to 
fcim. 


144 

What  was  the  meaning  of  this  tardy  hesitation  and  new-born  in 
difference,  whether  ii  should  be  communicated  or  not  ?  Why  does 
he  say  that  the  application  from  the  Department  of  State  for  his 
letter  was  made  without  any  previous  intimation,  suggestion,  or 
encouragement  on  his  part  ;  and  that,  had  it  not  been  made,  that 
paper  would  never  have  been  left  at  the  Department  of  State,  nor 
in  any  other  manner  presented  to  the  public  ?  Why  did  he  bring  it 
to  the  Department  ?  He  had  told  Mr.  Brent  that  he  would  deliver 
it  to  the  President ;  and  of  this  disposal  of  it,  Mr.  Brent  had  ap 
proved.  Why  does  he  represent  it  as  a  demand  upon  him  from  the 
Department  of  State  of  a  private  letter,  never  intended  for  the  pub 
lic  ?  Neither  I  nor  any  person  at  the  Department  of  State,  knew 
that  the  letter  was  private.  Mr.  Russell  knew  it,  although  he  had 
prepared  his  copy  or  his  duplicate,  without  marking  it  as  such.  He 
had  told  me,  when  I  mentioned  to  him  that  his  short  letter  of  De 
cember  25,  1814,  was  among  the  documents  of  the  negotiation  at 
the  Department,  and  asked  him  whether  he  chose  it  should  be 
communicated  to  the  House ;  he  had  then  at  first  told  me  that  he 
thought  that  was  a  private  letter,  which  it  would  be  improper  to 
communicate  ;  but  when,  after  having  examined  it,  he  decided  that 
part  of  it  should  be  communicated,  he  had  told  me  there  was  ano 
ther  letter  written  from  Paris,  which  he  wished  might  also  be  com 
municated.  He  had  not  spoken  of  it  as  a  private  letter,  nor  did  he 
deliver  the  duplicate  as  such  to  the  Department.  He  omitted  from 
it  the  word  private,  which  had  been  written  by  himself  upon  the 
original.  This  omission  was  doubtless  one  of  those  corrections, 
which  appeared  to  him  proper  to  exhibit  his  case  most  advantageously 
before  the  tribunal  of  the  public.  Its  tendency  certainly  was  to 
excite  a  suspicion  in  the  public  mind,  that  the  original  letter  was  or 
had  been  upon  the  files  of  the  Department,  and  that  in  the  answer 
to  the  prior  call  of  the  House  of  17th  January,  it  had  been  sup 
pressed. 

Mr.  Russell's  delivery  of  his  duplicate  at  the  Department  of  State 
was  entirely  spontaneous.  It  had  not  even  been  asked  of  him  by 
Mr.  Brent ;  and  the  inquiry  which  Mr.  Brent  had  made  of  him, 
whether  he  could  furnish  a  duplicate  of  the  letter  called  for  by  the 
resolution  of  the  House,  if  application  should  be  made  to  him  for  it, 
had  been  without  my  knowledge  ;  and  Mr.  Brent  had  told  him  so, 
Mr.  Russell  delivered  his  duplicate  at  the  Department  as  a  public 
letter,  and  as  if  the  original  itself  had  been  also  public.  What  then 
does  Mr.  Russell  mean,  when  he  says  that  he  left  it  for  my  exami 
nation  ?  What  does  he  mean,  by  saying  that  I  had  the  sole  power  to 
publish  it  or  not,  as  I  might  judge  proper,  and  to  consult  my  own 
feelings  and  interests,  in  forming  my  decision  ?  There  was  "  a  reso 
lution  of  the  House  of  Representatives,"  calling^upon  the  President 
to  cause  to  be  communicated  to  them  a  letter  specifically  designat 
ed.  The  writer  of  that  letter,  after  repeated  expressions  more 
than  two  months  before  to  me  and  to  Mr.  Bailey,  that  he  wished 
that  letter  might  be  communicated  to  the  House,  now  brought  to  the 


145 

Department  a  duplicate  of  it,  and  says  I  was  at  liberty  to  publish  it 
or  not,  as  it  might  suit  my  feelings  and  interests.  Mr.  Russell  is 
not  so  ignorant  of  the  duties  of  a  Secretary  of  State  as  not  to  know 
that,  in  the  usual  course  of  business,  the  resolution  of  the  House 
was  referred  by  the  President  to  the  Department  of  State  for  a 
report,  and  that  when  once  his  letter  had  been  delivered  by  himself 
at  the  Department,  it  was  my  indispensable  duty  to  report  a  copy 
of  it  to  the  President  for  communication  to  the  House.  Had  it  di 
rectly  charged  me  with  treason  to  my  country,  as  it  indirectly  did 
little  less,  my  only  and  inflexible  duty  as  Secretary  of  State  was,  to 
report  it  to  the  President  for  communication  to  the  House.  By  the 
terms  of  the  resolution  of  the  House,  the  President  indeed  might 
have  withheld  it  from  the  House,  if  in  his  judgment  the  communi 
cation  would  be  injurious  to  the  public  interest :  but  of  that,  the 
President,  and  not  I,  was  the  judge.  Suppose  even  that  the  Presi 
dent,  in  forming  his  judgment,  had  thought  proper  to  consult  my 
opinion  upon  it,  with  what  face  could  I  advise  that  it  should  be 
withheld  ?  If  the  letter  was  not  a  tissue  of  misrepresentations,  the 
Secretary  of  State,  and  the  Minister  of  the  United  States  in  France, 
were  men  unfit  to  hold  any  station  whatever  in  the  service  of  their 
country  ;  and  that  was  the  impression  evidently  intended  to  be  pro 
duced  by  the  letter,  at  least  throughout  the  largest  and  most  grow 
ing  section  of  the  Union.  Upon  what  pretence  could  /  have  advis 
ed  the  President  to  withhold  the  communication  as  injurious  to  the 
public  interest  ?  If  there  was  truth  in  the  letter,  its  contents  could 
not  be  too  soon  known  to  Congress  and  to  the  nation.  It  was  fitting 
that  the  conspirators  against  the  peaceful  and  unoffending  inhabit 
ants  of  the  Western  Country,  should  be  unmasked  before  the  pub 
lic,  and  that  the  world  of  the  West  should  be  apprized  of  the  whole 
extent  of  their  obligations  to  the  great  contider  in  their  valour  and 
in  God. 

On  receiving  the  paper,  therefore,  my  only  duty  was  to  report  a 
copy  of  it  to  the  President,  for  communication  to  the  House,  in  an 
swer  to  their  call.  On  perusal  of  it,  I  found  that  it  was  marked 
duplicate,  but  not  private,  and  that  it  bore  date  "  Paris,  11  Febru 
ary,  1822." 

My  first  impression  certainly  was,  that  the  error  of  this  date  was 
in  the  time,  and  not  in  the  place.  I  supposed  it  an  inadvertency, 
such  as  not  unfrequently  happens  in  copying  papers  of  date  other 
than  the  current  year,  which  in  the  hurry  of  writing  is  substituted 
unconsciously  for  the  date  of  the  original.  I  did  not  then  perceive 
that  the  word  copy  had  been  written  close  at  the  side  of  the  word 
duplicate,  and  scraped  out.  The  erasure  had  been  made  with  a 
cautious  and  delicate  hand  ;  its  attenuation  of  the  texture  of  the  pa 
per,  was  not  perceptible  to  an  unsuspecting  eye  ;  and  in  the  fresh 
ness  of  the  ink  when  performed,  must  have  appeared  to  be  com 
plete.  In  the  progress  of  blackening,  incidental  to  ink  after  it  has 
been  some  days  written  upon  paper,  the  traces  of  the  word  soon 
became  perceptible,  and  are  now  apparent  upon  its  face.  Both  the 


146 

words,  the  date,  and  the  whole  letter,  are  in  the  hand-writing  oi 
Mr.  Russell. 

On  reading  the  letter  through,  I  found  it  had  been  composed 
with  a  view  to  be  received  and  understood  as  if  all  written  at  Paris, 
in  February,  1815.  Yet  I  was  confident  it  had  not  all  been  so 
written.  I  was  particularly  struck  with  the  following  passages. 
"  I  will  frankly  avow,  however,  that  my  impressions  were,  and  still, 
"  are,  that  Great  Britain,  calculating  on  the  success  of  the  power- 
"  ful  expedition  which  she  HAS  SENT  against  New-Orleans,  confi- 
"  dently  expected  that  she  would  have  become  the  mistress 
*'  Louisiana,  and  all  its  waters  ;  and  that  she  did  not,  in  this  event, 
"  intend  to  abandon  her  conquest  under  the  terms  of  the  treaty  of 
"  Ghent." 

"  If  she  be  disappointed  in  her  views  on  Louisiana,  and  I  trust 
rt  in  God  and  the  valour  of  the  West  thats/te  will  be,  I  shall  not  be 
"  surprised,  if,  hereafter,  she  grants  us  the  fishing  privilege,  which 
"  costs  her  absolutely  nothing,  without  any  extravagant  equivalent 
"  whatever." 

"  At  any  rate,  we  are  still  at  liberty  to  negotiate  for  that  privilege, 
"  and  to  offer  for  it  an  equivalent,  fair  in  its  comparative  value,  and 
"  just  in  its  relative  effects." 

"  I  trust  in  GOD  she  WILL  BE" — in  a  letter  dated  Paris,  1 1  Febru 
ary,  1822 — signed  Jonathan  Russell — addressed  to  the  lion.  James 
Monroe,  Secretary  of  State — and  delivered  by  Mr.  Russell  to  be 
communicated  to  the  House  of  Representatives,  in  answer  to  a  call 
suggested  by  himself  for  a  letter  written  by  him  in  1815!  And 
Mr.  Russell  charges  me  with  disingenuousness,  for  communicating 
this  paper  to  the  House  !  And  Mr.  Russell  talks  of  respect  for  the 
Representatives  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  I  I  am  in  the 
judgment  of  my  country,  upon  this  state  of  facts.  But  as  for  Mr. 
Russell,  when  he  wrote  that — "  I  trust  in  God,  she  will  be" — and 
came  to  the  name  of  GOD — did  not  the  pen  drop  from  his  hand  ? 

I  took  the  letter  to  the  President,  and  expressing  to  him  my  sus 
picion,  that  the  above  passage  particularly  had  never  been  written 
at  Paris,  requested  him  to  cause  search  to  be  made  among  his  pri 
vate  papers  for  the  original  letter,  if  there  ever  had  been  one. 
The  search  was  accordingly  made,  and  the  letter  was  found.  On 
comparing  them  together,  1  immediately  perceived  that  the  original 
was  marked  private ;  which  the  duplicate  was  not.  I  turned  im 
mediately  to  the  prophesies  of  the  duplicate  :  in  the  original  they 
were  not.  I  looked  to  the  passage  in  the  duplicate,  which  repre^ 
sentsthe  fishing  privilege,  notonly  as  utterly  insignificant,  and  trifling 
in  value,  but  as  having  been  proved  to  be  so  by  the  best  informa 
tion  "  we  (the  plenipotentiaries  at  Ghent)  could  obtain  on  the  sub 
ject."  There  was  a  whole  system  of  misrepresentation  in  these 
words  we  could  obtain :  for  they  represented  the  incorrect  estimate 
of  the  value  of  the  fishing  privilege  which  they  introduced,  as  the 
result  of  information  obtained  by  the  whole  mission  at  Ghent,  as 
having  been  there  discussed,  and  as  aggravating  the  wrong  of  the 


147 

majority,  in  offering  so  extravagant  an  equivalent,  for  what  they 
knew,  upon  their  own  inquiries,  to  be  of  so  little  value.  Knowing, 
as  I  did,  that  the  information  was  all  misinformation  ;  that  no  in 
formation  concerning  the  value  of  the  privilege  had  been,  or  could 
have  been,  obtained  by  the  joint  mission  ;  and  that,  excepting  some 
doubts  as  to  its  value,  expressed,  not  by  Mr.  Russell,  it  had  never 
been  even  a  subject  of  conversation  in  the  mission — I  turned  to 
the  real  letter  from  Paris,  to  see  how  the  writer  had  expressed 
himself  there,  and  found  he  had  written,  "  according  to  the  best 
information  that  I  can  obtain  on  the  subject."  I  saw  immediately 
Ui.it  all  that  tale  about  the  obscurity  and  humidity  of  the  atmos 
phere,  in  the  high  northern  latidudes,  to  degrade  the  value  of  the 
Labrador  fishery,  was  not  in  the  original  even  pretended  (o  have 
been  information  sought  or  obtained  by  the  joint  mission  ;  that  the 
discovery  which  it  discloses  was  not  pretended  to  have  been  ever 
made  known  to  the  mission  ;  that  the  fogs,  so  pernicious  to  the 
curing  of  the  fish,  were  in  the  original  letter,  if  not  merely  the 
vapours  of  Mr.  Russell's  imagination,  at  least  no  more  than  the  re 
sult  of  the  best  information  that  he  could  obtain.  And  1  instantly 
saw,  too,  the  motives  for  the  substitution  of  the  wortls  we  could  in 
in  the  duplicate,  for  the  words  /  can,  in  the  original.  As  the  ori 
ginal  had  been  written  the  bill  of  indictment  which  it  virtually  con 
tained  against  the  majority  of  the  mission,  left  them  at  liberty  to 
say,  in  their  defence,  that  if  they  had  overrated  the  value  of  the^fish- 
ing  liberty,  it  had  been  at  least  an  honest  error.  It  left  them  at 
liberty  to  inquire,  why  Mr.  Russell,  in  their  discussions  upon  the 
fishery  question,  had  not  revealed  to  them  this  great  discovery  of 
obscurity  and  humidity  and  incessant  fogs,  which  lessened  so  much 
the  value  of  the  fishing  liberty.  The  tre  could  of  the  duplicate 
took  from  them  all  such  means  of  defence.  It  represented  them 
as  having  wilfully  sinned  against  their  better  knowledge  ;  as  hav 
ing  sought  information  of  the  value  of  the  fishing  liberty — as  hav 
ing  obtained  proof  of  its  worthlessness— and  yet  as  having  persisted 
in  offering  for  it  an  equivalent  which  was  to  let  in  British  smugglers, 
British  emmissaries.  and  all  the  horrors  of  Indian  warfare,  upon 
the  unoffending  inhabitants  of  the  West.  Was  this  one  of  those 
corrections  which  Mr.  Russell  believed  himself  permitted  to  make, 
which  appeared  to  him  proper,  to  exhibit  his  case  most  advantage 
ously  before  the  tribunal  of  the  public  ? 

Proceeding  in  the  comparison  between  the  two  papers,  when  I 
came  to  that  sublime  panegyric  upon  the  fishermen  to  atone  for  the 
absolute  surrender  and  eager  sacrifice  of  their  liberties  ;  to  that 
cheering  cup  of  consolation  doled  out  to  them  as  a  peace-offering 
for  the  extinguishment,  as  far  as  Mr.  Russell's  labours  could  avail, 
of  their  means  of  subsistence,  "  that  the  essential  security  and  pros 
perity  of  the  many,  must  be  preferred  to  the  convenience  and  mi 
nor  interests  of  the  few  ;"  to  that  swelling  peai  of  t  elf  applause, 
for  early  prepossessions  silenced,  and  local  predilections  subdued  ; 
nil  substituted  in  the  duplicate,  for  a  mere  postscripted  trust,  in  the 


148 

Original,  that  his  argument  to  demonstrate  the  abrogation  of  the 
treaty  of  1783,  by  the  war,  and  the  consequent  discontinuance  of  the 
fishing  privilege,  would  not  be  ascribed  to  any  hostility  to  those  in 
terested  in  it — the  mingled  emotions  at  the  bottom  of  the  soul  of 
the  writer,  betrayed  by  these  self-accusing  and  self-extolling  varia 
tions  from  his  letter  as  it  had  been  originally  written,  excited  in 
my  mind  a  sentiment  too  much  cheered  with  merriment,  and  too  much 
mitigated  by  compassion,  for  anger  to  have  in  it  any  part.  But  when, 
in  place  of  a  paragraph  in  the  original  letter,  expressly  declaring 
that  he  had  believed  with  the  majority  that  the  propositions  relat 
ing  to  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  and  to  the  fisheries  '*  violated 
in  no  way  our  instructions,"  I  found  foisted  into  the  duplicate  a  pa 
ragraph,  accusing  the  majority  not  only  of  the  violation  of  their 
instructions,  but  of  a  wilful  and  wanton  violation  of  them,  as  un 
derstood  by  themselves  ;  and  to  support  this  interpolated  charge,  a 
cancelled  paragraph  of  instructions  solemnly  cited,  of  which  he 
had,  within  two  months,  obtained  from  the  archives  of  the  Depart 
ment  two  successive  copies — let  me  candidly  confess  that  the  senti 
ment  uppermost  in  my  mind  was  indignation.  Mr.  Russell  com 
ments  upon  the  infirmities  of  my  temper,  and  says,  that  when 
afterwards  1  pointed  out  to  him,  face  to  face,  these  palterings  of 
his  own  hand-writing,  and  gave  hirn  proof,  from  the  records  of  the 
Department,  that  the  instructions  cited  by  him  in  support  of  his 
charge  against  his  colleagues,  had  been  cancelled  at  the  time  to 
which  the  charge  applied,  I  was  not  in  a  humour  to  listen  to  him 
even  with  civility.  This  I  deny.  I  did  listen  to  him  with  civility. 
The  reason  that  he  assigned  to  me  for  the  variance  between  his  ori 
ginal  and  his  duplicate  was,  that  the  whole  of  the  original  draft, 
for  which  he  had  sent  to  Mendon,  had  not  been  found,  and  that  he 
had  been  obliged  to  make  up  the  two  last  leaves  from  memory. 
He  said,  too,  that  there  was  no  material  variation  of  facts,  as  re 
presented  in  the  two  papers.  He  said,  as  he  says  in  the  Boston 
Statesman,  that  he  had  felt  himself  at  liberty  to  alter  the  paper  to 
make  his  case  better  for  the  public  eye.  He  said  he  had  never 
written  against  me  anonymously  in  the  newspapers,  and  intimated 
that,  in  the  year  1816,  when  I  was  in  Europe,  there  had  appeared 
in  thQ  Boston  Centinel  a  paragraph,  charging  him  with  having 
been  willing,  at  Ghent,  to  give  up  the  fisheries — a  thing  of  which  I 
had  never  before  heard.  He  assured  me  that,  in  bringing  his  letter 
before  the  public,  his  motive  had  not  been  to  combine  with  my 
enemies  to  ruin  my  reputation.  To  all  this  I  did  listen  with  per 
fect  civility  and  composure  ;  and  the  last  words  with  which  1  parted 
from  him,  however  painful  to  him  and  myself,  were  not  wanting  in 
civility.  They  are  clearly  impressed  upon  my  memory,  and  I 
trust  they  are  upon  his.  He  is  at  liberty  to  publiph  them  if  he 
thinks  fit,  as  they  were  spoken.  I  should  not  have  alluded  to  them 
here  but  for  his  charge  of  incivility,  which  is  as  groundless  as  all 
the  other  charges  of  which  he  has  been  the  willing  bearer  against 


149 

But  Mr.  Russell  did  not  say,  that  he  had  understood  the  applica 
tion  from  Mr.  Brent  to  him,  to  know  whether  he  could  furnish  the 
duplicate  of  the  letter  called  for  by  the  House,  had  been  made 
with  my  privity,  or  by  my  authority.  He  did  not  say  that  it  had  not 
been  his  intention  to  deliver  it  as  a  duplicate.  He  did  not  say  that 
he  had  purposely  dated  it  "Paris,  llth  February,  1822,"  to  give 
notice  that  it  was  not  the  letter  written  by  him  in  1815,  called  for 
by  the  resolution  of  the  House.  He  did  not  say  that  it  was  at  my 
option  whether  to  communicate  it  to  the  House  or  not,  nor  did  he 
insinuate  that  the  alteration  at  the  Department  of  the  date  from. 
1822,  tirst  to  1816,  and  then  to  1815,  had  been  made  without  his 
approbation  or  consent.  To  all  this  he  knew  the  refutation  was 
too  near  at  hand  to  admit  of  its  being  said  at  that  time  and  place. 
As  to  his  giving  explanations  to  me,  what  explanation  could  he 
give  ?  What  explanation  has  he  given  to  the  public  ?  The  call  of 
the  House  was  for  a  specitical  paper  written  by  him — he  had  fur 
nished  a  paper  as  a  duplicate  of  it,  in  his  own  hand-writing.  It 
had  been  detected  as  a  paper,  so  much  the  same,  and  yet  so  differ 
ent,  that  it  was  susceptible  of  no  explanation  consistent  with  fair 
dealing :  and  the  expedients  to  which  ;Vlr.  Russell  is  reduced,  in 
attempting  to  account  for  it  now,  afford  the  most  unanswerable 
proof,  that  he  has  for  it  no  honest  explanation  to  give.  He  despe 
rately  seeks  an  apology  for  it,  by  imputing  to  me  a  design  to  entrap 
him,  by  the  alteration  of  the  date  of  his  duplicate,  from  1822  to 
1816,  and  then  to  1815,  made  at  the  Department.  These  alterations 
were  made  like  the  application  of  Mr.  Brent  to  Mr.  Russell,  for 
the  duplicate  without  my  knowledge,  and  happened  thus. 

After  comparing  the  two  papers  together,  I  gave  the  duplicate 
to  Mr.  Bailey,  for  a  copy  of  it  to  be  made,  to  be  reported  to  the 
President,  for  communication  to  the  House.  Mr.  Bailey  gave  it  to 
be  copied  to  Mr.  Thomas  Thruston,  a  Clerk  in  the  Department, 
a  young  man  of  a  fair  and  honourable  mind.  Perceiving  the  date 
of  the  letter  to  be  "Paris,  11  February,  1822,"  and  knowing  that 
Mr.  Russell  had  been  through  the  whole  of  that  month  attending 
Congress  in  this  city  ;  not  suspecting  for  a  moment  that  this  date 
had  been  designedly  assumed  by  Mr.  Russell,  he  consulted  Mr. 
Brent,  who,  concluding  with  him  that  the  date  of  the  year  was  an 
inadvertency,  authorized  him  to  rectify  it  in  the  copy.  Mr.  Thrug- 
ton  thought  that  he  might  extend  that  kindness  to  Mr.  Russell  fur 
ther,  by  making  the  same  change  in  the  paper  itself.  He  passed 
his  pen  therefore  through  the  figures  1822,  and  wrote  over  them 
1816,  thinking  that  was  the  year  in  which  the  letter  was  written. 
This  change  was  not  only  made  without  my  knowledge  ;  but  when, 
made  known  to  me  was  disapproved  by  me.  Mr.  Brent  supposed 
that  all  would  be  set  right  by  making  known  the  alteration  to  Mr. 
Russell  himself,  and  obtaining  his  consent  to  the  rectification  of  the 
date  of  the  year.  He  did  so  ;  and  Mr.  Russell  not  only  approved 
of  the  change,  but  brought  his  original  draft  to  the  Department, 
and  showed  the  date  of  it  to  Mr.  Brent,  to  confirm  the  second  cor 
rection.  I  only  askjhow  intense  must  be  the  pressure  of  that  con- 

19 


150 

Su'cmsrress,  which  attempts  to  palliate  the  variations  in  Mr.  Rus 
sell's  two  papers,  by  representing  incidents  like  these,  as  crafty 
wiles  of  mine  to  ensnare  his  innocence  ? 

Mr.  Russell  complains  that,  after  the  original  of  his  letter  had 
been  found,  the  duplicate  should  have  been  communicated  to  the 
Blouse  at  all.  He  complains  that  I  should  have  presumed  to  make 
remarks  upon  both  of  them.  He  complains  that  I  went  to  the 
House  of  Representatives  on  the  6th  of  May,  and  there  in  person 
sought  for  a  member  who  would  consent  to  make  the  call  which 
was  necessary  for  the  official  publication  of  my  personal  remark?. 
As  usual,  part  of  these  statements  is  true,  and  part  is  riot — my  call 
at  the  House  of  Representatives  on  the  6th  of  May,  was  accidental ; 
being  on  my  return  from  witnessing  the  experiment  of  Commodore 
Rodgers's  noble  invention  at  the  Navy-Yard.  I  did  not  there  seek 
for  a  member  who  would  consent  to  make  the  call.  I  never  asked 
any  member  to  make  the  call ;  though  I  told  several  members  who 
spoke  to  me  on  the  subject  there,  and  elsewhere,  that  it  was  my 
wish  the  documents  should  be  communicated  to  the  House.  The 
President's  message  to  the  House  of  the  4th  of  May,  which  Mr. 
Russell  had  seen  before  he  left  the  city,  had  informed  the  House 
of  my  desire  that  the  letter  should  be  communicated,  together  with 
a  communication  from  me  respecting  it. 

The  truth  is,  that  my  desire  for  the  communication  of  Mr.  Rus 
sell's  letter  to  the  House  had  commenced  on  the  same  day  that  his 
own  had  ceased.  Mr.  Russell,  from  the  26th  of  January  to  the 
22d  of  April,  had  been  indefatigable  in  bis  exertions  to  bring  this 
letter  before  Congress  and  the  public.  He  had  procured  the  ori 
ginal  draught  of  it  from  Mendon ;  he  had  procured  the  call  for  it 
from  the  House  ;  he  had  endured  the  toil  of  re -writing,  with  his 
own  hand,  at  least  once,  a  letter  of  seven  folio  sheets  of  paper  -t 
he  had  brought,  and  delivered  it  with  his  own  hand,  at  the  Depart 
ment.  At  the  moment  of  fruition  his  appetite  fails  him.  Doubts 
of  consequences  to  himself,  as  well  as  to  others,  seem  to  flash  across 
his  mind.  He  leaves  the  paper— For  what?  For  communication 
to  the  House,  in  answer  to  their  call  ?  No  !  "  To  put  it  in  the 
power  of  the  person  tvho  might  consider  liimself  the  most  liable  to  be 
affected  by  its  publication1' — for  the  "  previous  examination  and 
consent  of  the  ADVERSE  PARTY."  He  seems  to  invite  objection  to 
its  being  communicated.  He  is  quite  indifferent  whether  it  be 
communicated  or  not,  and,  it  not  communicated,  he  desires  that  it 
may  be  returned  to  him.  But  to  make  its  terrors  irresistible,  he 
has  double  and  treble  charged  it  with  crimination  of  violated  in 
structions  ;  and  to  vouch  his  charges,  has  twice  armed  himself 
with  official  copies  from  the  Department,  of  the  cancelled  part  of 
the  instructions  of  15th  April,  1813. 

I  had  never  wished  for  the  communication  to  the  House  or  to  the 
public  of  the  letter,  until  I  had  seen  it.  The  effect  of  its  perusal 
upon  my  mind  was  certainly  different  from  what  Mr.  Russell  ap 
pears  to  htwe  anticipated.  I  saw  at  once  what  it  was  and  what  if 


151 

tuearit.  I  also  saw,  in  a  great  measure,  what  its  writer  was,  which 
I  had  never  seen  before,  and  the  discovery  of  the  original  letter, 
two  days  after,  disclosed  him  to  me  in  all  his  glory.  In  the  private 
relations  between  us,  I  remembered  what  he  had  been  to  me,  and 
what  1  had  been  to  him,  for  more  than  twelve  years  before,  until, 
and  including  that  very  morning.  I  saw  that  he  was  now  to  be,  in 
substance  and  in  intent,  my  accuser,  and  that  of  the  colleagues  with 
whom  I  had  acted,  before  the  House,  of  which  he  was  a  member, 
and  before  the  nation.  In  the  original  he  had  been  a  secret  ac 
cuser,  under  the  mask  of  self-vindication.  In  the  duplicate  he  had 
laid  aside  the  mask,  though  not  the  professions  of  unfeigned  re 
spect ;  and  to  all  the  secret  discoJourings  of  the  conduct  and  opi 
nions  of  his  colleagues,  had  added  the  new  and  direct  charge  of  a 
wanton  and  wilful  violation  of  their  instructions,  as  understood  by 
themselves.  To  have  shrunk  from  these  charges  would,  in  my  es 
timation,  have  been  equivalent  to  an  admission  of  their  truth.  To 
have  suppressed  them,  after  the  prying  curiosity,  which  had  long 
been  stimulated,  to  see  this  mysterious  and  fearful  letter,  would 
have  been  impossible.  No  honourable  course  was  left  me  but  thai; 
of  meeting  the  ADVERSE  PARTY  on  the  scene  which  he  himself  had 
selected  for  his  operations  ;  and  I  knew  that  little  more  would  be 
necessary  for  my  own  vindication,  and  that  of  my  colleagues,  in  the 
minds  of  all  impartial  men,  than  from  the  materials  furnished  by 
Mr.  Russell  himself,  to  expose  to  the  House  at  once  the  character 
of  the  accusation  and  of  the  accuser.  I  did,  therefore,  desire  that 
both  the  letters  of  Mr.  Russell,  and  my  remarks  upon  them,  should 
be  communicated  to  the  House  ;  but  even  then,  if  Mr.  Russell,  in 
stead  of  affectiog  indifference,  had  fairly  acknowledged  his  error, 
and  requested  that  the  papers  might  not  be  communicated,  I  would 
have  joined  him  in  that  request  to  the  President. 

Both  the  letters  were  communicated  to  the  House  ;  both  were 
strictly  within  the  call  of  their  resolutiou,  which  was  for  "  any 
letter  which  may  have  been  received  from  Jonathan  Russell,  in  con 
formity  with  the  indications  contained  in  his  letter  of  the  25th  De 
cember,  1814."  1  remarked  upon  both;  and  if  that  has  proved 
a  mortification  to  Mr.  Russell,  he  should  recollect  that  he  brought 
it  upon  himself.  It  was  his  fault  there  was  any  difference  between 
them  to  remark  upon.  He  should  also  remember,  that  if  the  ori 
ginal  alone  had  been  communicated,  he  would  have  been  deprived 
of  the  benefit  of  "  those  corrections  of  the  copy  in  possession,  which 
appeared  to  him  proper  to  exhibit  his  case  most  advantageously  be» 
fore  the  tribunal  of  the  public." 

Mr.  Russell  is  mistaken  in  supposing  that  I  attach  any  importance 
to  his  protest,  as  adding  authentication  to  his  professions,  or  prov 
ing  his  sincerity.  What  difference  can  there  be  between  the  word 
of  a  man,  with  or  without  protest,  who,  after  writing  the  word  du 
plicate  upon  a  letter  written  and  signed  by  himself,  to  be  communi 
cated  as  a  public  document  to  a  legislative  body,  tells  the  public 
that  he  gave  no  further  intimation,  much  less  an  assurance,  thai  it 


152 

was  so,  and  avows  that  it  was  not  so  ?  If  the  name  of  God,  under 
Mr.  Russell's  pen,  could  not  deter  him  from  converting  the  past 
into  the  future,  that  he  might  enjoy  the  honours  of  prophecy,  and 
couple  with  his  trust  in  the  Deity,  his  confidence  in  the  valour  of 
the  West,  what  excuse  could  I  have  for  considering  the  declaration 
of  Mr.  Russell  as  either  more  or  less  sincere  for  being  backed  by 
his  protest  ? 

**  To  add  a  perfume  to  the  violet 

**  Is  wasteful  and  ridiculous  excess." 

But  if  Mr.  Russell,  after  delivering  on  the  22d  of  April  his  du 
plicate  at  the  Department  of  State,  and  especially  after  he  knew 
that  the  orignal  had  been  found,  was  no  longer  solicitous  that  either 
of  them  should  be  communicated  to  the  House,  he  had  neither 
given  up  the  inclination,  nor  the  intention  of  appearing  before  the 
public,  as  the  accuser  of  his  colleagues  of  the  majority  at  Ghent. 

He  left  the  City  of  Washington  on  the  5th  of  May,  the  day  after 
the  House  of  Representatives  had  received  the  President's  answer 
to  the  call  of  the  19th  of  April — with  that  answer  the  President 
communicated  to  the  House  my  report  to  him,  which  had  been 
accompanied  by  a  copy  of  the  duplicate  left  by  Mr.  Russell  at  the 
Department  for  communication.  But  the  President  did  not  com 
municate  the  copy  of  the  duplicate  itself.  He  informed  the  House 
that  the  original  had  also  been  found — that  it  had  been  marked  as 
SL  private  letter,  by  the  writer  himself — that  it  disclosed  differences 
of  opinion  which  would  naturally  call  for  answers  from  those  im 
plicated  by  it ;  and  that  1,  as  one  of  them,  had  already  requested 
that  it  might  be  communicated,  together  with  my  remarks  upon  it. 
Under  those  circumstances  the  President  declined  communicating 
the  letter  called  for,  unless  the  House,  upon  a  knowledge  of  them, 
should  desire  it — in  which  case  he  informed  them  that  it  would  be 
communicated,  together  with  rny  report  upon  it. 

Ail  this  was  known  to  Mr.  Russell  when  he  left  the  city  ;  and  it 
is  presumed  that  he  also  knew  that  the  call  for  the  letter  would  not 
be  renewed  by  the  mover  of  the  resolution  of  the  19th  of  April ; 
yet  Mr.  Russell  went  to  Philadelphia,  and  there  caused  to  be  print 
ed  in  the  National  Gazette  of  the  10th  of  May.  another  variety  of 
his  letter  of  llth  February,  1815,  from  Paris,  to  Mr.  Monroe — 
still  differing  from  the  original — differing  also  from  the  duplicate, 
which  he  had  delivered  at  the  Department,  but  satisfactorily  prov 
ing  with  what  ingenuity  he  had  told  me  that  the  two  last  leaves  of 
his  original  draft  had  not  been  found  at  Mendon.  and  that  he  had 
been  obliged  to  supply  their  contents  in  the  duplicate  from  memo 
ry — the  triplicate  of  the  National  Gazette  was  accompanied  by  an 
editorial  article,  vouching  for  its  authenticity  as  a  copy— vouching 
from  good  authority  that  Mr.  Russell  had  had  no  share  in  the  call 
(of  the  House  of  the  19th  of  April)  for  the  private  letter — and 
commenting  in  a  style,  the  apologetical  character  of  which  indicates 
its  origin,  upon  the  privacy,  which  it  urged  was  not  secrecy,  of  the 
letter  ;  upon  the  professions  of  Mr.  Russell's  respect  for  his  col- 


153 

leagues  in  the  letter,  and  upon  the  frequency  of  such  personal  and 
separate  explanations  in  the  annals  of  diplomacy — all  this,  upon  the 
face  of  it,  came  directly  or  indirectly  from  Mr.  Russell  himself. 
The  letter,  as  published  in  the  National  Gazette,  was  not  marked 
private,  as  the  original  had  been,  which  was  now  known  from  the 
President's  message.  It  had  discarded  the  panegyric  upon  the  dis 
franchised  fishermen — the  self-eulogium  for  enlarged  patriotism 
and  subdued  predilections  and  prepossessions — the  prophetic  in 
spirations,  and  the  trust  in  God  and  in  the  valour  of  the  West, 
which  were  in  the  duplicate  and  not  in  the  original.  It  had  stripped 
off  all  the  cumulative  epithets  added  in  the  duplicate  to  the  charge 
of  a  wilful  violation  of  instructions — it  had  even  dismissed  the 
charge  of  having  violated  their  instructions  relating  to  the  Missis 
sippi,  as  construed  by  tJiemselvcs,  and  the  emphatic  citation  of  tht* 
explicit  and  implicit  CANCELLED  instructions  of  15th  April,  1813. 
But  it  had  retained  the  interpolation  of  "  we  directly  violated  our 
instructions"  and  the  substitution  of  "  we  could"  for  "  I  can,"  in 
that  luminous  exposition  of  atmospheric  humidities  and  incessant 
fogs  which  had  been  discovered  to  have  so  nearly  annulled  the 
value  of  the  Labrador  fishery  ;  and  although  the  cancelled  instruc 
tions  were  no  longer  cited  in  the  text  of  the  letter,  yet  to  support 
the  remnant  of  interpolated  charge,  that  they  had  been  violated, 
they  were  expressly  subjoined  as  an  appendage  to  the  publication, 
with  an  abundance  of  italicised  words  to  point  out  the  heinousness 
of  this  violation ;  and  this  was  after  the  interview  in  which  I  had 
shown  to  Mr.  Russell  at  the  Department,  the  record,  not  only  of 
the  letter  of  4th  October,  1814,  to  the  Commissioners,  which  had 
not,  but  that  of  the  letter  of  the  1 9th  October,  1814,  which  had  been 
received  before  the  proposal,  upon  which  the  charge  of  violation 
rested,  had  been  made  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries.  The  tri 
plicate  of  the  National  Gazette  had  restored  the  postscript  of  the 
original,  which  had  been  dismissed  from  the  duplicate,  containing 
the  three  hopeful  OTHER  ways  of  proceeding  devised  by  Mr.  Rus 
sell's  resources  of  negotiation,  two  months  after  the  negotiation  was 
over,  instead  of  the  course  which  we  did  pursue,  the  word  other 
only  being  omitted.  The  triplicate  of  the  National  Gazette,  in 
short,  proved  that  the  original  draft  from  Mendon  had  been  com 
plete  ;  and  that  all  its  own  interpolations,  as  well  as  those  of  the 
duplicate,  and  its  omissions,  had  been  owing,  not  to  deficiencies  of 
memory,  but  to  superfluities  of  invention. 

Such  is  the  true  history  of  the  tactics  of  Mr.  Russell,  in  bringing 
before  the  House  of  Representatives  and  the  nation,  his  impeach 
ment  of  his  colleagues,  the  majority  of  the  Ghent  mission — that  it 
was  such  of  me,  is  fully  admitted  by  himself  in  the  Boston  States 
man,  by  styling  me  the  adverse  party,  and  in  that  publication  he 
sufficiently  indicates  his  disposition  in  the  progress  of  his  operations 
to  concentrate  his  charges  against  me  alone.  Be  it  so.  In  my  re 
marks  upon  the  original  and  duplicate  of  his  accusatory  letter,  I 
styled  it  a  laborious  tissue  of  mitrep  retaliation*.  He  complains  of 


154 

this  as  of  virulence  and  acrimony.,  which  he  boasts  of  not  having  re 
turned.  If  virulence  and  acrimony  had  no  other  vehicle  than  harsh 
language,  if  they  could  be  disguised  under  professions  of  unfeigned 
respect,  however  cautiously  Mr.  Russell  had  abstained  from  them 
in  his  original  letter  from  Paris,  he  had  been  much  less  observant  of 
that  decorum  in  the  duplicate,  prepared  with  new  relishes  of  crimi 
nation  to  suit  the  appetite  of  political  hatred  ;  and  the  publication  in 
the  Boston  Statesman  is  by  no  means  sparing  either  of  virulence  or 
acrimony  against  me.  The  whole  tenour  of  his  argument  in  the 
original  letter,  against  his  colleagues,  was  sneering  and  sarcastic. 
In  the  Boston  Statesman,  besides  direct  charges  against  me,  of  disin- 
genuousness,  of  having  made  an  unprincipled  and  unprovoked  attack 
upon  him,  of  disrespect  to  the  House  of  Representatives,  of  infirm 
ities  of  temper  and  taste,  and  of  being  a  dreaming  visionary,  he  tries 
even  the  temper  of  his  wit  to  assail  me,  and  by  a  heavy  joke  upon 
an  expression  used  in  my  remarks,  indulges  his  own  inftinct  of  mis 
quoting  my  words  to  make  them  appear  ridiculous.  If  this  be  Mr, 
Russell's  mildness  and  moderation,  it  looks  very  much  like  the  viru 
lence  and  acrimony  of  others.  In  the  transactions  of  human  socie 
ty,  there  are  deeds  of  which  no  adequate  idea  can  be  conveyed  in 
the  terms  of  courtesy  and  urbanity  ;  yet  I  admit  the  obligation  of  a 
public  man  to  meet  with  coolness  and  self-command  the  vilest  arti 
fices,  even  of  fraud  and  malignity,  to  rob  him  of  the  most  precious 
of  human  possessions,  his  good  name — -"thrice  happy  they  who 
master  so  their  blood."  If  in  my  former  remarks  upon  Mr.  Rus 
sell's  Janus-faced  letter,  or  in  this  refutation  of  his  new  and  direct 
personal  attack  upon  my  reputation,  I  have,  even  in  word,  trans 
gressed  the  rule  of  decency,  which,  under  every  provocation,  it  is 
still  the  duty  of  nay  station  and  of  my  character  to  observe,  though, 
unconscious,  myself,  of  the  offence,  I  submit  to  the  impartial  judg 
ment  of  others,  and  throw  myself  upon  the  candour  of  my  country 
for  its  forgiveness.  This  paper  has  been  confined  to  a  demonstra 
tion  of  the  frailty  or  the  pliability  of  Mr.  Russell's  memory,  in  rela 
tion  to  facts  altogether  recent.  As,  upon  an  issue  of  facts,  I  do  not 
even  now  ask  that  my  word  alone  should  pass  for  conclusive,  state 
ments  of  Mr.  Brent  and  Mr.  Bailey,  relative  to  the  production  of 
Mr.  RusselPs  letter  before  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  to 
the  incidents  from  which  Mr.  Russell  has  attempted  to  extort  a 
charge  of  disingenuousness  against  me,  are  subjoined.  My  only 
wish  is,  that  they  should  be  attentively  compared  with  Mr.  Rus 
sell's  narrative. 

In  another  paper  I  shall  prove  that  Mr.  Russell's  reminiscences 
of  the  proceedings  at  Ghent,  bear  the  same  character  of  imagina 
tion  substituted  for  memory ;  and  that  what  he  calls  "  the  real  his 
tory  of  the  transaction,"  [the  fishery  and  Mississippi  navigation  pro 
posal,]  contradictory  to  the  statement  which  I  had  made  in  my  re 
marks,  is  utterly  destitute  of  foundation. 

JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS, 

Washington,  13th  July,  1$22. 


Mr.  BrenCs  Statement. 

On  the  20th  of  April  of  the  present  year,  I   called  upon  Mr.  Russell  at  hi$ 
i.>  Icings  in    this  city,  without  the  knowledge  or  direction   of  any  other  person 
whatever,  to  inquire  of  him,  as  I  did,  whether  he  could  and  would  furnish  the 
Department  of  State   with  a  copy  of  his  letter   from  Paris  to  the  Secretary  of 
State,  which  was  referred  to  in   a  resolution  that  I  supposed   to  be  then  on   its 
passage  (but  which  had  actually  passed  the  day  before,)  through  the  House  of 
Representatives,  upon  the  motion  of  Doctor  Floyd,  in    case  the  said  resolution 
:-hould   be  adopted  by  the  House,  and  a  regular  application  were   made  to  him 
fur  it ;  observing  to  him  distinctly  and  particularly,  however,  that  I  had  no  au 
thority  to    make  such  an  application  myself,  and  that  my  entire  object   was  to 
ascertain  the  facts  just  stated.     In  answer  to  this  inquiry,  Mr.  Russell  informed 
mo  that  his  daughter  had  recently  transmitted  to  him  the  draft  of  the    letter  hi 
question  ;  that  he  had  it  thereby  in  his  power  to  give  a  transcript  of  it,  and  would 
sot  about  making  one  immediately,    which,  when  finished,  he  would  deliver  to 
the  President.     Upon  which  I  remarked,  that   this  seemed    to  be  the   proper 
rourso,  the  original  having  been  addressed  to  him,  the  President,  when  Secreta 
ry  of  State.     I  then  observed  to  Mr.  Russell,  that  he  had  better  deliver  it  as  a 
duplicate  than  as  a  copy  ;  that  he  knew  the  original  was  not  to  be  found  upon  the 
filt-s  of  the  Department  of  State,  and  that  this  was'he  common  form  with  regard 
to  all  such  communications.     Pie  seemed  pleased  with  the  suggestion,  and  said 
that  he  would  conform  to  it,  without  giving  me  the   slightest  intimation  that  he 
would  prefer  giving  a  copy,  as  such,  or  that  he  v/ould  furnish  any  other  than  a 
duplicate  of  the   identical  letter  spoken  of  and    referred    to,    which  had  been 
transmitted  by  him  from  Paris  to  the  then  Secretary  of  State.     I  was  prompted 
by  a  double  motive  to  this  inquiry — first,  by  an  habitual  wish  that  the  Depart 
ment  to  which  I  belonged  should  always  be  prepared  to  furnish  what  might  be 
required  of  it  by  the  House  of  Representatives  ;  and,  secondly,  by   an  appre 
hension  that,  if  it  were  not  so  prepared   in   this  particular  case,  unjust  imputa 
tions  might  be  made  against  the  Head  of  that  Department,  which  I  was  desir 
ous  of  obviating.     In  this  interview,  Mr.  Russell  told  me  that  it  was  at  his  in 
stance  Doctor  Floyd  had  submitted  his  last  resolution  to  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives  ;  that  he  was  influenced,  himself,  by  the  wish  that  his  letter  should  be 
communicated  to  Congress,  tor  his  justification  as  to  the  part  he  had  taken  in 
the  negotiation  of  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  with  regard  to  the  fisheries  ;  but  that  the 
same  gentleman's  first  motion  upon  the  same  subject,   was  made  without  his 
knowledge  or  advice.     On  the  22d  of  the  same  month,  Mr.  Russell  handed  to 
we,  in  my  rrom  at   the  Department  of  State,   in  the  absence  of  the  Secretary, 
with  a  request  that  I  would  deliver  it  over  to  him,  an  open  letter,  marked  "Du 
plicate,"  a  copy  of  which  was  communicated  by  the  President  to  the  House  of 
Representatives,  on  the  ?th  of  May  last ;  observing,  when  he  did  so,  that  he  felt 
no  particular  solicitude  about  it,    and    requesting  that  it  might  be  returned    to 
him,  if  not  used  by  the  Department.     A  day  or  two  afterwards  this  paper  was 
put  into  the    hands    of  Mr.  Thomas  Thruston,    one  of  the  clerks  of  the  office, 
to  be  copied.     Perceiving  that  it  bore   date  at  Paris,  on  the  llth  of  February, 
1822,  when  Mr.  Russell  was  known  to  be  attending  the  session  of  Congress  in 
this  city,  as  a  member  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  this  young  gentleman 
asked  my  advice  whether  he  should  insert  that  date  in  the  copy  or  not  ;  and  I 
told  him,  without  hesitation,  to  insert  1816  instead  of  18^2,  as  Mr.  Russell  had 
evidently,  from  inadvertence,  made  a  mistake  in  the  date.     Mr.  Thruston  gave 
it  that  date  accordingly,  and  made  a  correspondent  alteration  in  the  paper  it 
self,  which Jie  was  transcribing,  under  the  impression  that  he  was  likewise  au 
thorized  to  do  so,  and  that  it  would  never  produce  criticism  of  any  sort.     When 
Mr.  Adams  came  to  be  apprized  of  these  circumstances,  particularly  of  the  al 
teration  in  the  date  of  the  "  duplicate"  paper,  he  manifested   and  expressed 
much  surprise  and  displeasure  upon   the  occasion.     But  Mr.  Russell,  whom  I 
s  i\v  immediately  after  they  happened,  and  to  whom  I  communicated  what  ha« 


156 

been  done,  expressed  his  full  and  entire  approbation  of  it;  and  the  next  day  he 
brought  to  the  office  the  draught  from  which  he  stated  the  "  duplicate"  was  pre 
pared  by  him,  bearing  date  Paris,  llth  February,  1815,  which  he  particularly 
showed  to  me,  as  a  corroborative  justification  to  the  Department  of  State  for 
the  alteration  that  had  been  made  in  the  date  of  his  paper.  It  was  then,  I 
think,  that  I  informed  him  of  the  substitution  which  had  been  made  in  the  office 
copy  of  the  year  1815  for  that  of  1816,  to  correct  our  own  mistake  ;  and  he  au 
thorized  and  requested  me  to  have  a  like  alteration  made  in  his  "  duplicate," 
which  was  accordingly  done.  Mr.  Russell,  upon  this  occasion,  again  expressed 
his  indifference  as  to  the  determination  of  the  Executive  with  regard  to  this 
u  duplicate,''  and  repeated  his  request  that  it  should  be  returned  to  him  if  not 
used. 

In  one  of  our  conversations  I  asked  him  why  he  had  delivered  that  paper  to 
me,  and  not  to  the  President,  to  whom  he  had  said  he  would  deliver  it  ?  His 
reply  was,  that  he  had  done  so  because  he  deemed  that  course  most  respectful 
to  the  Department  of  State,  being  under  the  impression,  notwithstanding  my  de 
claration  to  the  contrary,  that  I  had  sounded  him  upon  the  subject  of  the  paper 
in  question  by  authority,  (meaning,  I  presumed,  by  direction  of  the  Secretary 
of  State,)  and  that  it  was  actually  required  at  the  Department  of  State. 

In  a  conversation  between  Mr.  Russell  and  myself,  on  the  1st  May,  in  Mr. 
Bailey's  room,  at  the  Department  of  State,  in  the  presence  and  hearing  of  that 
gentleman,  he  fully  and  expressly  admitted  and  confirmed  the  correctness  of  the 
statement  given  in  this  paper  of  the  conversation  between  us  of  the  20th  of 
April,  at  his  lodgings,  with  regard  to  the  facts  that  the  call  of  Doctor  Floyd  for 
his  letter  had  been  made  at  his  suggestion,  and  that  I  mentioned  to  him  I  had 
no  authority  to  make  an  application  to  him  for  a  copy  of  that  letter,  and  that  I 
made  none. 

DANIEL  BRENT, 

Washington,  IQth  July,  1822. 


Mr.  Bailees  Statement. 

Several  days  after  the  passage  of  the  resolution  of  the  House  of  Represent 
atives  of  the  United  States,  of  17th  January,  1822,  moved  by  Mr.  Floyd,  and 
calling  on  the  President  for  copies  of  certain  papers  relative  to  the  negotiations 
at  Ghent,  but  before  the  copies  had  been  communicated  to  the  House,  Mr.  Rus 
sell,  of  the  House,  called  at  my  room  in  the  Department  of  State,  and  expressed 
a  wish  to  see  aletter  addressed  by  himself,  separately,  at  Ghent,  to  the  then  Se 
cretary  of  State.  He  stated  that  the  present  Secretary  of  State  had  mentioned  the 
letter  to  him,  and  had  desired  to  know  whether  it  was  his  (Mr.  Russell's)  wish 
that  this  letter  should  be  communicated  to  the  House  with  other  papers  embraced 
fay  the  above  call,  or  not.  This  letter,  (a  short  one,  dated  "Ghent,  25th  De 
cember,  1814.,")  was  accordingly  shown  to  Mr.  Russell  by  me,  in  a  volume  con 
taining  the  original  communications  from  our  Plenipotentiaries  at  Ghent,  which 
had  been  bound  and  lettered  in  the  Department  several  years  before.  Mr.  Rus 
sell,  on  reading  the  letter,  suid  that  he  saw  no  objection  to  the  communication 
of  it,  and  asked  me  if  I  saw  any.  The  reply  was,  that  none  was  seen.  He 
said  that  the  concluding  paragraph,  as  it  related  to  his  return  to  Sweden,  and 
not  at  all  to  the  negotiations  at  Ghent,  did  not  require  to  be  communicated  to 
the  House.  I  requested  him  to  mark  such  part  as  he  wished  communicated. 
This  he  did ;  and,  conformably  to  this,  the  copy  was  made,  by  subsequent  di 
rection  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  and  thus  it  appears  in  the  printed  copy,  p.  50, 

At  the  same  time,  or  very  soon  after,  (I  do  not  remember  which,")  Mr.  Rus 
sell  expressed  a  wish  that  the  letter  might  be  found  and  communicated,  which, 
in  his  letter  of  25th  December,  1814,  he  intimated  his  intention  of  writing. 
The  wish  was  repeated  at  subsequent  times,  both  at  my  room  and  elsewhere; 
and  much  desire  was  manifested  by  him  on  the  subject.  Mr.  Russell  and  my 
self  together,  as  well  as  myself  separately,  examined  at  different  times  the 


157 

bound  volume  above-named,  and  also  other  files,  on  which,  if  mislaid,  the  let 
ter  would  most  probably  have  been  placed  ;  but  no  trace  of  it  was  found.  Afc 
his  suggestion  I  made  inquiry  of  the  Secretary  and  of  the  Chief  Clerk  ;  but 
they  had  no  knowledge  of  such  letter.  The  Secretary  informed  me  that  his  first 
knowledge  that  such  a  letter  had  been  written,  was  from  Mr.  Russell's  declar 
ation  to  him  since  the  call  of  17th  January  ;  and  that  the  existence  even  of  Mr. 
Russell's  letter  of  25th  December,  1814,  was  unknown  to  him  previous  to  his 
examination  of  the  files  in  consequence  of  said  call. 

Mr.  Russell,  while  making  the  above  inquiries  for  his  letter  of  the  Hth  Feb 
ruary,  1815,  remarked  to  me,  that  he  had  not  a  copy  of  it  here,  but  had  at 
home,  (in  Massachusetts,)  and  that  he  could  get  a  copy  by  writing  to  his 
daughter,  there  ;  but  supposed  that  would  be  too  late  for  a  compliance  with  the 
(first)  call.  He  asked  me  if  I  supposed  a  copy,  so  made  out,  would  be  received 
and  communicated  to  the  House  with  the  other  papers.  I  replied  that  I  did 
not  know  sufficiently  what  was  usual  on  such  occasions.  After  he  had  delivered 
the  "  duplicate"  at  the  Department,  he  told  me  that  he  had  written  to  his 
daughter  for  the  copy,  and  that  she  had  sent  it. 

While  Mr.  Russell,  at  his  first  visit,  was  examining  various  records  of  the. 
office,  he  noticed  a  paragraph  in  the  instructions  to  the  Commissioners  of  peace 
of  loth  April,  1813,  respecting  British  traders  within  our  limits  ;  a  paragraph, 
which  was  omitted  in  the  copy  sent  to  Congress  by  Mr.  Madison  with  his  mes 
sage  of  13th  October,  1814,  (see  Wait's  State  Papers,  vol.  9,  p.  357,)  and 
which,  it  is  believed,  was  never  published  till  it  appeared  in  the  National  Ga 
zette  of  lOth  May,  1822.  Of  this  Mr.  Russell  requested  of  me  a  copy.  On 
direction  of  the  Secretary,  I  made  and  sent  to  him  the  copy  :  and,  several 
weeks  after,  (I  think  early  in  April,)  on  his  remarking  to  me  that  that  copy  was 
mislaid  or  not  found,  and  asking  another  copy,  a  second  was  made  and  sent  to 
him. 

Soon  after  the  call  of  19th  April,  Mr.  Russell  was  at  my  room,  and  said 
(wholly  spontaneously)  that  Mr.  Floyd  had  made  his  motion  for  that  call  «TZ* 
fire.li/  without  his  knowledge,  or  without  consulting  .with  him,  or  words  to  that 
effect.  He  also  said  he  did  not  know  Mr.  Floyd's  motive  for  making  his  firs^ 
motion  (for  the  call  of  17th  January.) 

On  receiving  the  duplicate,  the  Secretary  of  State  gave  it  to  me  to  be  copied  | 
for  which  purpose  it  was  handed  to  Mr.  Thiuston.  The  date  having  been  al 
tered  from  1822  to  1816,  as  stated  by  Mr.  Brent,  the  Secretary,  OB  seeing  the. 
alteration,  expressed  distinctly  his  displeasure  at  the  circumstance.  When  Mr. 
J&ussell  next  came  to  the  Department,  Mr.  Brent,  in  my  presence,  mentioned  to 
him  the  incident  of  the  alteration  from  1822  to  1816  ;  and  (such  is  strongly  my 
impression,  scarcely  leaving  a  doubt,  though  Mr.  Brent  is  uncertain  whether 
this  intimation  happened  at  this  or  the  next  visit  of  Mr.  Russell,)  intimated 
that  1816  was  put  by  mistake  for  1815,  and  that  1815  would  be  the  reading  of 
the  copy  for  the  House,  if  such  was  Mr.  Russell's  pleasure.  Mr.  Russell  not 
only  assented  to  the  alteration,  (to  1815,)  but  requested  that  it  might  be  read 
thus,  in  a  manner  more  emphatic  and  formal  than  an  ordinary  request ;  pur 
porting,  that  he  wished  this  declaration  of  his  to  be  taken  as  authority  for  the 
alteration.  And,  at  his  next  call,  he  brought  with  him  the  draught  from  which 
he  made  the  duplicate,  and,  after  exhibiting  its  date  to  Mr.  Brent,  in  his  room, 
brought  it  to  me,  to  show  that  "  1822"  was  a  mistake  in  copying.  The  draught 
was  plainly  "  l3l5." 

When  the  copy  was  made  for  the  House,  the  Secretary  was  anxious  that  it 
should  conform  with  scrupulous  exactness  to  the  paper  deposited  by  Mr.  Rus- 
se],  with  the  sole  exception  of  the  date,  which  he  wished  modified  according  to 
Mr.  Russell's  special  request. 

On  the  1st  of  May,  Mr.  Russell  and  Mr.  Brent  were  in  my  roonvand  Mr. 
Brent  recapitulated  the  conversation  between  himself  and  Mr.  Russell,  on  the 
20fh  April,  when  Mr.  Brent  made  certain  inquiries  respecting  Mr.  Russell's 
'f-tter.  The  recapitulation  in  substance  stated,  that  Mr.  Brent  informed  Mr. 

20 


158 

Russell,  that  his  Inquiries  were  wholly  without  the  authority  of  any  other  per- 
son  ;  that  his  object  was  to  know  whether  Mr.  Russell  could  and  would  furnish 
the  letter,  if  it  should  be  wanted,  and  if  he  should  be  applied  to  for  it  ;  and 
that  Mr.  Russell  told  Mr.  Brent  that  he  could  and  would  furnish  it  to  the  Pre 
sident  ;  'and  that  he  further  told  Mr.  Brent,  (on  Mr.  Brent's  inquiry,)  that  Mr, 
Floyd  had  made  his  (second)  motion  on  his  (Mr.  Russell's)  suggestion.  Mr. 
Russell  assented  to  the  correctness  of  this  recapitulation,  explaining  the  last  ob 
servation  by  saying,  that  Mr.  Floyd,  before  he  moved  the  second  call,  asked 
him  if  he  could  give  him  (Mr.  Floyd)  a  copy  of  the  letter,  and  that  he  (Mr, 
Russell)  declined,  and  told  Mr.  Floyd  that  if  he  wished  a  copy  he  must  move  a 

Callf0rit'  JOHN  BAILEY. 

Washington,  10 th  July,  1822. 


From  the  National  Intelligencer  of  August  7,  1822. 
TO  THE  EDITORS. 

In  the  reply  printed  in  the  National  Intelligencer  of  the  17th 
ultimo,  to  a  publication  by  Mr.  Jonathan  Russell  in  the  Boston 
Statesman,  of  the  27th  of  June  preceding,  it  was  stated  that  the 
subject  would  be  resumed  in  another  paper.  That  paper,  with 
others  elucidating  all  the  topics  of  general  interest  discussed  in  Mr, 
Russell's  letter,  has  been  prepared,  but  will  be  presented  to  the 
public  in  another  form.  Mr.  Russell's  letter  from  Paris,  of  llth 
February,  1815,  was  ostensibly  a  vindication  of  himself  and  his  mo 
tives  against  an  accusation  instituted  by  himself— self-defence 
against  "self-impeachment !  The  substance  was,  a  secret  impeach 
ment  of  the  majority  of  his  colleagues  before  their  common  supe 
rior  authority.  That  accusation  he  saw  fit,  during  the  late  session 
of  Congress,  to  bring  before  the  Legislative  Assembly  of  which  he 
was  a  member,  and  shortly  afterwards  to  produce  before  the  pub 
lic,  in  newspapers,  at  Philadelphia  and  at  Boston.  If,  in  meeting 
this  accusation  wherever  it  has  appeared  visible  and  tangible,  1  have 
been  compelled  to  present  myself  more  than  once  to  the  public  at 
tention,  it  has  been  under  circumstances  deeply  mortifying  to  me, 
and  assuredly  not  of  my  own  choosing.  I  have  been  called  to  re 
pel  a  succession  of  charges,  supported  by  the  name  of  a  man  high 
in  the  confidence  of  the  country  ;  an  associate  in  the  trust  which, 
he  substantially  accuses  me  of  having  betrayed,  and  implicating  the 
character,  conduct,  and  memory  of  other  citizens  employed  on  the 
same  service.  It  has,  indeed,  recently  been  suggested  that  this  is 
a  mere  personal  controversy  between  Mr.  Russell  and  me,  with 
which  the  public  have  no  concern.  And  why  was  it  brought  before 
the  public  ?  So  long  as  the  purport  of  Mr.  Russell's  letter  was 
merely  propagated  in  whispers— just  hinted  in  anonymous  para 
graphs  of  newspapers,  and  hoped  not  to  be  true  in  charitable  letter* 
from  Washington,  however  infamous  the  imputations  with  which  it 
was  occasionally  oound  up  and  circulated,  a  man  conscious  of  his 
innocence,  and  secure  in  the  uprightness  of  his  intentions,  might 


159 

overlook  and  despise  it.     But,  when  made  the  ohject  of  two  sue* 
cessive  legislative  culls  for  obsolete  and  forgotten  documents,  trum 
peted    beforehand  throughout  the  Union,    as  fraught  with  disclo 
sures  which  were  to  blast  a  reputation  worthless  in  the  estimation 
of  its  possessor,  if  not   unsullied  ;  when  pertinaciously  obtruded 
upon  Congress  and  upon  the  nation,  by  a  colleague  in  the  transac 
tion  denounced,  by  a  participator  in  the  act  reprobated  by  himself, 
principles  and  duties  of  a  higher  order  than  those  of  mere  personal 
delicacy  commanded  me  to  solicit  the  attention,  first,  of  the  House 
of  Representatives,  and,  secondly,  of  the  nation,  to  my  defence  and 
that  of  my  colleagues,  arraigned  before  them.     That  defence  has 
been,  and  will  be,  strictly  confined  to  the  same  limits  as  the  attack 
to  which  it  is  opposed  ;  and  if,  in  the  course  of  it,  the  attack  itself 
has  necessarily  been  made  to  recoil  upon  the  accuser,  it  was  because 
nothing  could  more  forcibly  tend  to  show  the  futility  of  the  charges 
than  an  exposition  of  the  conduct  of  him  who  produced  them.    Let 
me  then  be  permitted  to  say,  that  this  is  not  a  mere  personal  con 
troversy  between  Mr.  Russell  and  me,  with  which  the  public  have 
no  concern.     It  did  not  so  begin,  nor  can  it  so  end.     The  negotia 
tion  at  Ghent  was  an  event  of  great  importance  in  the  history  of 
this  Union.     It  was  conducted  by  five  Commissioners,  citizens  of 
different  sections  of  the  country.     One  of  the  great  objections  to 
the  entrusting  of  critical  negotiations  to  Commissions  is,   their  in 
herent  tendency  to  internal  dissentions,  injurious  to  the  common 
cause.     Of  these  dissentions  1  believe  there  were  as  few  at  Ghent 
as  in  any  negotiation,  by  Commissioners  of  equal  number,  upon  his 
torical  record.     Until  the  last  winter,  I   had  flattered  myself  that 
none  of  those  differences  of  opinion  had  been  of  a  character  which 
it  would  have  been  ever  necessary  to  disclose  to  the  world.     In 
making  the  draught  of  the  joint  letter  of  25th  December,  1314,  to 
the  Secretary  of  State,  I  had,  in  speaking  of  the  proposition  made  to 
the  British  plenipotentiaries  on  the  first  of  that  month,  said,  '•  To 
place  both  points  beyond  controversy,  we  offered  to  admit  an  article 
confirming  both  rights,"  (to  the  Mississippi  navigation  and  the  fish 
eries.)  The  draught  having  been  passed  round  to  all  the  members  of 
the  mission  for  revisal,  was  brought  back  to  me  by  Mr.  Russell, 
with  an  alteration,  which  he  said  was  desired,  not  by  him,  but  by 
Mr.  Clay,  to  say,  instead  of  "we  offered"  "a  majority  of  us  de 
termined  to  offer."     Now,  although  the  expressions  first  used  had 
been  strictly  correct,  and  the  offer  had  been  actually  made  by  the 
whole  mission,  I  readily  assented  to  the  alteration,  not  imagining 
that  Mr.  Russell's  purpose  was  to  lay  it  as  a  corner-stone  for  future 
iabrics,  either  of  self-accusation  and  defence,  or  of  social  discord 
and  reproach.     Me  now  alleges  it  as  a  self-contradiction  of  mine, 
that  I  say  the  proposition  was  made  by  the  whole  mission,  although 
in  the  joint  letter  of  25th  December,  it  was  said,  a  majority  deter 
mined  to  offer  it.     But  the  contradiction  is  of  his''own  imagination, 
The  determination  was  taken  by  the  majority.    The  offer  was  made 
!>y  the  whole.   Mr.  Russell  proposed  another  amendment,  for  which 


160 

he  neither  mentioned,  nor  did  I  then  suspect  his  motive.  The  let 
ter  says,  "  We  contended  that  the  whole  treaty  of  1783  must  he 
considered  as  one  entire  and  permanent  compact,  not  liable,  like 
ordinary  treaties,  to  be  abrogated  by  a  subsequent  war  between  the 
parties  to  it."  Mr.  Russell's  proposal  was  to  change  the  word 
must  for  might — to  read  "  we  contended  that  the  whole  treaty 
might  be  considered,"  &c.  But  to  this  alteration  I  objected  that  it 
would  not  state  the  facts  as  they  were — that  we  had  actually  con 
tended  that  it  must,  and  not  that  it  might  be  so  considered  ;  and  Mr. 
Russell  immediately  yielded  to  this  objection,  which  he  could  not 
dispute.  He  assented  to  this  passage  of  the  letter,  as  it  was  first 
written,  and  as  it  now  stands.  The  use  which  he  even  then  pro 
posed  to  make  of  the  alteration,  if  it  had  been  admitted,  I  now  per 
ceive,  but  had  then  too  sincere  a  regard  for  Mr.  Russell  to  surmise. 
There  were,  in  the  course  of  the  negotiation,  many  differences 
of  opinion,  and  many  votes  taken  ;  but,  excepting  this  solitary  case, 
no  one  member  of  the  mission  thought  it  necessary  to  record  the 
fact,  or  to  make  it  known  even  to  the  American  government.  As 
all  the  members  of  the  mission  had  finally  concurred  in  the  pro 
position  upon  which  the  vote  was  taken,  and  had  signed  their  names 
lo  it  in  the  communications  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries  ;  and  as 
there  was  then  no  allegation  by  any  one  that  it  was  not  fully  war 
ranted  by  our  instructions,  1  certainly  thought  there  was  as  little 
necessity  for  announcing  to  our  government  that  a  vote  had  been 
taken  upon  this  proposition,  as  upon  any  other  question  which  had 
occurred — yet,  when  it  was  desired  by  any  membej  of  the  mission, 
that  the  proposition  to  which  ail  had  pledged  their  names  and  sig 
natures  to  the  adverse  party  and  the  world,  should  be  recorded,  as 
having  been  previously  determined  by  a  majority  only,  I  could 
have  no  objection  to  its  being  so  stated.  Mr.  Clay  did  not  think  it 
necessary  either  to  accuse  or  to  defend  himself  for  having  been  in 
the  minority.  The  course  pursued  by  Mr.  Russell  was  neither 
candid  towards  his  colleagues,  nor  friendly  to  the  liberties  of  his 
country.  Under  the  guise  of  accusing  himself,  he  became  the  se 
cret  delator  of  his  colleagues.  But  his  letter  from  Paris  was  not 
Confined  to  its  professed  object  of  vindicating  himself  for  his  vote 
tipon  the  Mississippi  proposition.  He  travelled  out  of  the  record, 
and  racked  his  ingenuity  and  his  learning  to  refute  the  principle 
assumed  at  the  proposal  of  Mr.  Clay  himself — the  principle  upon 
which  no  vote  had  been  taken  in  the  mission  ;  but  which  had  been 
adopted  and  inserted  in  the  note  of  10th  November,  1814,  by  una 
nimous  consent  ;  the  principle  that,  from  the  nature  of  the  fishing 
liberties,  and  the  peculiar  character  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  they 
were  not  abrogated  by  the  war.  And  now,  seven  years  afterwards, 
when,  by  the  maintenance  of  that  very  principle,  we  had,  in  a  sub^ 
sequent  negotiatipn  with  Great  Britain,  secured  in  a  new  compro 
mise,  without  abandoning  the  principle,  the  whole  essential  interest 
r  n  the  iishmg  liberties  ;  when,  by  the  same  negotiation,  we  had  ob- 
•aiced  the  abandonment  by  Great  Britain  c-f  her  own  ground  ot 


161 

•«,Iaim  to  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  and  when  that  negotiation 
had  been  conducted  under  instructions  entirely  drawn  up  by  me  ; 
a  call  from  the  House  of  Representatives  comes  for  the  residue  of 
tjie  Ghent  documents.  Mr.  Russell,  having  it  placed  at  his  own  op 
tion  whether  his  old  denunciation  of  himself,  and  his  disagreement 
with  the  majority,  shall  or  shall  not  be  communicated  to  the  House, 
deliberately  decides  that  it  shall — and  gives  himself  and  others  no 
repose,  till  he  has  brought  before  Congress  and  the  nation,  his  bill 
of  attainder  against  his  colleagues,  new  vamped  to  suit  the  political 
passions  of  the  day  ;  it  is  HOW  too  late  to  say  that  this  is  a  mere 
personal  controversy  between  Mr.  Russell  and  me  with  which  the 
public  have  no  concern. 

The  principle  asserted  in  the  letter  from  Paris,  that  tt-e  were  left 
without  any  title  to  the  fishing  liberty  -whatsoever,  was  in  the  highest 
degree  pernicious  to  one  of  the  most  important  interests  of  this 
Union.  The  pretension  that  our  only  title  to  them  had  been  a 
temporary  grant  of  the  British  king,  revokable  at  hjs  pleasure, 
was  equally  unfounded  in  law  and  in  fact.  The  reason  assigned 
for  the  averment  of  its  extinction — that  war  abrogates  all  treaties, 
and  all  articles  of  every  treaty — is  not  warranted  by  the  law  of  na 
tions  ;  and  if  it  were,  would  not  warrant  the  conclusion  drawn 
from  it.  The  character  and  value  of  the  proposition  relating  to 
the  Mississippi,  are  in  the  letter  from  Paris  totally  misrepresented 
and  perverted  by  exaggeration.  The  value  of  the  fishing  liberty 
is  equally  misrepresented  and  perverted  by  disparagement.  The 
possession  of  this  liberty  has  twice  been  the  turning  hinge  upon 
which  wars  with  Great  Britain  have  been  concluded.  If  upon  ei 
ther  of  those  occasions  the  principles  asserted  in  Mr.  RusselT 
letter  had  prevailed  with  the  American  negotiators,  our  rights  m 
the  Newfoundland,  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  and  Labrador  fishery, 
would  have  been  lost.  The  same  question  may  very  probably  arise 
again.  I  undertake  to  prove  that  the  argument,  as  Mr.  Russell 
calls  it,  of  his  letter,  is  in  all  its  parts  as  untenable  as  it  was  unpro- 
pitious  to  the  cause  of  his  country, 

I  have  no  intention,  however,  of  pursuing  this  controversy  fur 
ther  in  the  newspapers.  I  propose  to  publish  in  one  collection, 
the  Ghent  documents  called  for  by  the  resolution  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  ;  the  message  of  the  President  to  the  House,  with 
Mr.  Russell's  letters  and  my  remarks  ;  his  publication  of  27th  June, 
in  the  Boston  Statesman,  and  mine  in  answer  thereto  in  the  Na 
tional  Intelligencer,  with  other  papers,  rectifying  other  represen 
tations  of  Mr.  Russell :  and  discussing  the  effect  of  war  upon 
treaties  and  treaty  stipulations  ;  the  value  of  the  Mississippi  navi 
gation  to  the  British,  and  of  the  fishing  liberty  to  us  and  the  rights 
by  which  we  have  held  and  still  hold  them.  That  there  ever  w;is 
any  difference  of  opinion  between  the  American  plenipotentiaries 
at  Ghent  upon  measures  in  which  they  all  finally  concurred,  would 
never  have  been  made  known  to  the  public  by  me.  Satisfied  with 
an  equal  share  of  responsibility,  for  all  which  they  had  done,  con- 


162 

tented  and  grateful  for  the  satisfaction  of  our  common  country  with 
the  general  result  of  our  services,  I  had  no  private  interests  or 
feelings  to  indulge,  at  the  expense  of  others,  and  my  earnest  desire 
would  have  been,  to  have  seen  in  every  member  of  the  mission, 
for  the  rest  of  my  days,  no  other  than  a  friend  and  a  brother.  Disap*- 
pointed  in  this  wish,  rny  next  hope  is,  that  even  the  discords  of  Ghent 
may  be  turned  to  the  promotion  of  future  harmony  in  the  Union. 
From  the  nature  of  our  federative  constitution,  it  is  probable  that 
hereafter,  as  heretofore,  the  most  important  negotiations  with  for 
eign  powers  will  be  committed  to  joint  missions  of  several  mem 
bers.  To  every  such  mission  and  to  all  its  rnombers  the  Ghent 
negotiation  will  afford  instructive  lessons,  as  well  by  its  union  as 
by  its  divisions.  The  conduct  of  Mr.  Russell  will  afford  a  negative 
instruction  of  deep  import.  It  will  teach  them  to  beware  of  leaguing 
invidious  and  imaginary  sectional  or  party  feelings  with  the  pur 
poses  of  the  enemy,  against  our  rights — of  assuming  the  argument 
of  the  enemy  against  ourselves — of  proclaiming,  without  necessity, 
differences  'of  opinion  upon  rejected  propositions — of  secret  de 
nunciations  in  the  shape  of  self-vindication — of  crude  and  shallow 
dissertations  against  essential  interests  and  just  claims,  and  of  in 
terpolating  public  papers  to  adapt  them  to  the  purposes  of  the  mo 
ment.  It  will  teach  them  to  have  a  higher  sense  of  the  rights  and 
liberties  of  this  nation,  than  to  believe  them  to  be  held  at  the  will 
of  a  British  king;  and  it  will  warn  them  to  turn  their  talents 
to  better  uses  than  that  of  sacrificing  the  essential  interests  of  their 
country.  These  are  public  concerns  of  great  moment,  and  a  just 
understanding  of  them  in  every  part  of  the  Union  is  indi?solubly 
connected  with  a  just  estimate  of  the  conduct  of  the  majority  of 
the  Ghent  mission,  held  forth  to  public  censure  by  one  of  their  col 
leagues.  For  a  view  of  the  whole  ground  it  will  be  indispensable 
to  compare  the  documents  of  the  negotiation  with  the  references  of 
both  parties  to  them  in  the  discussion,  and  to  that  end  it  will  be  ne 
cessary  that  they  should  all  be  included  in  one  publication.  J  ask 
of  the  candour  of  my  countrymen  to  be  assured,  that  this  publica 
tion  will  be  addressed  to  no  temporary  purposes,  to  no  party  feel 
ing,  to  no  sectional  passions,  but  to  the  whole  nation  and  to  pos 
terity,  upon  objects  which,  although  implicating  immediately  onlv 
the  conduct  of  the  negotiators  at  Ghent,  are  of  deep  and  perma 
nent  interest  to  themselves. 

JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS. 

August  5,  1822. 


163 
FURTHER  STRICTURES 

ON  MR.  RUSSELL'S  REPRESENTATIONS  AND  ESTIMATES. 

/.  Navigation  of  the  Mississippi — Worthless  to  the  British. 

In  the  joint  despatch  of  the  25th  of  December,  1814,  to  the  Se 
cretaryof  State,  signed  by  all  the  members  of  the  American  mis 
sion  at  Ghent,  a  narrative  was  given  of  the  circumstances,  undei 
which  the  proposal  had  been  made  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries 
and  rejected  by  them,  of  a  stipulation,  confirming  the  provisions  of 
the  treaty  of  1783,  in  regard  to  the  fishing  rights  and  liberties  of 
the  people  of  the  United  States,  and  to  the  right  of  the  British  to 
navigate  the  Mississippi.  It  was  there  stated,  that  after  the  Ame 
rican  mission,  in  answer  to  the  notification  from  the  British,  that 
their  government  did  not  intend  to  grant  anew  the  fishing  liberties, 
had  asserted  the  principle,  that  from  the  peculiar  character  of  the 
treaty  of  1783,  and  the  nature  of  those  rights  and  liberties,  no  fur 
ther  stipulation  had  been  deemed  necessary  by  the  government  of 
the  United  States,  to  entitle  them  to  the  full  enjoyment  of  all  of 
them  ;  after  they  had  sent  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  on  the 
10th  of  November,  1814,  a  project  of  a  treaty,  containing  no  arti 
cle  or  stipulation  on  the  subject ;  after  the  British  plenipotentiaries 
had,  on  the  2G£/i  of  November,  returned  that  project  with  alterations 
proposed  by  them,  one  of  which  was  a  stipulation  that  British  sub 
jects  should,  at  all  times,  have  access  to  the  river  Mississippi  and 
the  free  navigation  of  the  river — to  meet  this  demand,  and  to  place 
both  points  beyond  all  future  controversy,  a  majority  of  the  mission 
determined  to  offer  to  admit  an  article  confirming  both  rights. 

Nothing  can  be  more  clear  and  explicit  than  this  statement  that 
the  determination  of  the  majority  was  taken  after  the  26th  of  No 
vember,  1814.  Yet  directly  in  the  face  of  it,  Mr.  Russell,  in  the 
Boston  Statesman  of  27  June,  affirms  that  at  the  mission  meetings 
of  the  28th  and  29th  of  November,  "  whatever  might  have  been 
'•  said  in  relation  to  the  Mississippi,  on  account  of  the  alteration, 
^J  respecting  it,  made  in  the  B(h  article  of  our  project,  by  the  Bri- 
"  tish  plenipotentiaries,  no  new  resolution  was  there  taken  by  the 
ir  American  mission  to  offer  the  navigation  of  that  river  for  the  fishing 
•c  privilege.  This  offer  was  made  on  the  1st  of  December,  in  vir- 
"  tue  of  the  vote  taken  before  the  10th  of  November,  and  which, 
<J  although  suspended,  had  not  been  reconsidered  or  cancelled." 
And  he  adds,  "  I  am  the  more  confident  in  this  statement,  as  I  dis- 
-'  tinctly  remember  that  when  that  offer  was  actually  made,  it  was 
"'  unexpected  by  A  MAJORITY  OF  THE  MISSION.  Mr.  Bayard,  in  re- 
"  turning  home  from  the  house  of  the  British  ministers,  where  the 
"  conference  of  the  1st  of  December  had  been  holden,  very  expli- 
<{  citly  declared  to  Mr.  Clay  and  to  me,  his  dissatisfaction  that  this 
:'  offer  had  been  made  without  his  having  been  recently  consulted  in 
•'  relation  to  it.  I  dare,  in  regard  to  these  facts,  to  appeal  to  the 
•'•  recollection  of  Mr.  Clay,  in  confirmation  of  my  own,"' 


164 

Marvellous  indeed !  So  then  this  wonder-working  and  tefriblc 
proposal,  this  portentous  sacrifice  of  the  peace,  comfort,  and  safety 
of  the  western  world,  was  actually  made  in  full  conference  with 
the  British  plenipotentiaries,  not  by  a  majority,  but  by  a  MINORITY, 
of  the  American  mission.  And  Mr.  Bayard,  who  had  changed  his 
mind,  stood  by,  and  saw  the  proposal  made,  heard  it  discussed, 
saw  it  entered  on  the  protocol  as  the  proposal  of  the  American 
plenipotentiaries,  and  afterwards  signed  a  letter  declaring  he  had 
no  objection  to  it ;  while  all  the  time  he  was  not  for,  but  against  it. 
And  Mr.  Clay  and  Mr.  Russell,  who  from  before  the  10th  of  No 
vember  had  known  the  change  of  Mr.  Bayard's  mind,  they  too, 
witnessed  this  insolent  usurpation,  by  the  minority,  of  the  name 
and  rights  of  the  whole  mission,  without  dariny;  to  avow  an  objec 
tion  to  it  either  in  the  presence  of,  or  in  correspondence  with,  the 
British  plenipotentiaries,  or  in  the  meetings  of  the  mission  itself. 
Mr.  Bayard  contents  himself  with  whispering  his  dissatisfaction  to 
Mr.  Clay  and  Mr.  Russell  ;  and  they,  instead  of  vindicating  the  in 
sulted  rights  of  the  majority,  reserve  it  as  a  secret,  which  Mr.  Rus 
sell,  seven  years  after  the  death  of  Mr.  Bayard,  divulges  to  the 
world. 

The  anecdote  is  an  outrage  on  the  memory  of  Mr.  Bayard.     Mr. 
Clay  will  not  respond  affirmatively  to  the  appeal  of  Mr.  Russell. 
J  have  no  occasion  for  appealing  in  this  case  to  the  recollection  of 
any  one.  I  speak  not  only  from  the  express  and  positive  testimony 
of  the  joint  despatch  of  25  December,  1814,  but  from  the  record 
of  a  private  diary,  kept  by  me  at  the  time,  in  which  are  minuted 
from  day  to  day,  with  all  the  accuracy  and  detail  in  my  power,  the 
proceedings  as  well  of  the  mission,  as  of  both  missions  in  their  con 
ferences  :  and  1  now  affirm,  that  on  the  28th  of  November,  1814, 
after  a  discussion  of  more  than  five  hours,  in  which  every  member 
of  the  mission,  except  Mr.  Russell,  took  part,  a  vote  was  taken 
npon  the  proposal  of  Mr.  Gallatin,  to  accept  the  proposed  altera 
tion  of  the  8th  article  of  the  project,  presented  by  the   British 
plenipotentiaries,  relating  to  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  ad 
ding  to  it  a  counter  stipulation  for  securing  the  fishing  liberties 
within  exclusive  British  jurisdiction  ;  that  a  majority  of  the  mis 
sion  voted  for  this  proposal,  and  that  Mr.  Gallatin  should  prepare 
for  consideration  the  next  day,  an  amendment  to  the  8th  article  con 
formably  ; — that  on  the  29th  of  November  Mr.  Gallatin  did  pro 
duce  this  amendment,  which,  after  another  long  discussion,  was 
agreed  to,  and  was  the  same  offered  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries, 
as  appears  by  the  protocol  of  the  1st  of  December,  1814.     It  was 
to  this  vote  of  the  majority,  and  to  this  alone,  that  the  joint  des 
patch  of  25  December,   1814,  referred  ;  and  it  was  to  this  vote, 
ihus  stated  upon  the  face  of  the  despatch,  that  Mr.  Russell  referred 
in  his  separate  letter  of  the  same  date,  when  he  said  that  he  had 
been  on  that  occasion  in  the  minority.     Yet  it  was  not  without  rea 
son  that  in  my  former  remarks  upon  his  letters  I  said,  he  gave,  it 
may  be,  a  silgnt  vote  against  the  proposal :  for,  from  the  minutes 


165 

in  my  diary,  although  I  know  that  a  vote  was  taken,  and  that  there 
was  a  majority  in  favour  of  the  proposal,  yet  it  <loes  not  appeal- 
that  Mr.  Russell  voted  against  it  ;  and  from  an  observation  made 
at  the  time  by  Mr.  Gallatin,  to  which  Mr.  Russell  expressed  no  dis 
sent,  I  should  now  rather  conclude  that  he  did  not  on  that  day  vote 
at  all.  It  was  not  unusual  when  a  vote  was  taken,  as  soon  as  a  ma 
jority  was  ascertained,  to  ornit  calling  for  the  vote  of  the  fifth 
member  ;  and  Mr.  Russell  was  not  unwilling  to  avail  himself  of 
these  opportunities  to  avoid  voting  at  all.  However  that  fact  may 
he,  I  repeat  that  he  took  no  part  in  the  discussion,  and  that  after 
the  vote  was  taken,  it  was  Mr.  Gallatin's  impression,  which  he  ex 
pressed  in  Mr.  Russell's  presence  without  being  contradicted  by 
him,  that  he  was  then  in  favour  of  the  proposal. 

The  proposition  to  which  Mr.  Russell  says  he  objected,  [he  should 
have  said,  against  which  he  voted,]  before  the  10th  of  November, 
was  not  substantially  that  first  offered  on  the  1st  of  December ; 
nor  was  the  latter  offered  in  virtue  of  the  vote  taken  before  the 
10th  of  November.  The  joint  despatch  of  25th  December,  says 
not  one  word  of  the  vote  taken  before  the  10th  of  November  :  nor 
had  Mr.  Russell's  separate  letter  of  25th  December,  any  reference 
to  it  whatever.  His  subsequent  letters  have  indeed  attempted  to 
confound  them  together,  for  the  purpose  of  urging  against  the  pro 
position  which  was  made,  the  arguments,  some  of  which  had  been 
used  by  Mr.  Clay,  against  that  which  was  not  made.  But  these  are 
all  corrections  made  to  suit  present  purposes.  By  comparing  toge 
ther  the  article  upon  which  the  vote  was  taken  before  the  10th  of 
November,  (I  shall  soon  say  when)  as  Mr.  Russell  has  published 
it  in  the  Boston  Statesman,  and  the  proposal  actually  made  as  ap 
pears  in  the  protocol  of  1st  December,  it  will  immediately  be  per 
ceived,  that  they  are  essentially  different  ;  and  that  the  latter  could 
not  have  been  offered  as  the  act  of  the  American  mission,  by  vir 
tue  of  the  vote  taken  upon  the  former. 

The  history  of  the  vote  taken  before  the  10th  of  November  is 
as  follows  : 

On  the  29th  of  October,  1814,  it  was  agreed  at  a  meeting  of  the 
mission,  that  a  draught  of  a  project  of  a  treaty  should  be  made,  to 
be  discussed  by  the  mission,  and,  as  might  be  after  such  discussion 
settled  by  them,  presented  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries.  The 
task  of  making  this  draught  was  assigned  to  Mr  Gallatin  and  me. 
Mr.  Gallatin  engaged  to  draw  up  the  articles  respecting  the  boun 
daries  and  Indians,  and  I  undertook  to  prepare  those  respecting 
impressment,  blockade,  and  indemnities. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  mission  the  next  day,  the  draughts  of  the  arti 
cles  were  produced  ;  and  among  those  offered  by  Mr.  Gallatin  was 
the  article  cited  by  Vlr.  Russell  in  the  Boston  Statesman  of  27th  June 
last.  As  it  was  finally  set  aside,  I  have  no  copy  of  it ;  but  have  no 
reason  to  doubt  that  it  was  in  the  words  cited  by  Mr.  Russell.  At 
this  meeting,  Mr.  Clay  objected  to  it.  Mr.  Russell  was  not  pre- 
gent. 

21 


166 

The  article  was  discussed  further,  chiefly  between  Mr,  Gallatm 
and  Mr.  Clay,  at  meetings  of  the  mission  on  the  31st  of  October* 
and  on  the  1st,  2d,  and  3d  of  November. 

I  had  till  then  taken  no  part  in  the  discussion.  The  following 
are  extracts  from  my  diary  of  subsequent  dates,  when,  at  meetings 
pf  the  mission,  all  the  articles  of  the  draught  were  discussed. 

4  November,  1814.     "  The  great  difficulty  was  with  regard  to, 
f  the  fisheries.  Mr.  Gallatin's  draught  proposed  the  renewal  of  the 
c<  right  of  fishing  and  drying  fish  withiii  the  British  jurisdiction,  to? 
"  gether  with  the  right  of  the  British  to  navigate  the  Mississippi, 
"  both  taken  from  the  peace  of  1783.  I  was  in  favour  of  this.    Mr. 
"  Clay  has  an  insuperable  objection  to  the  renewal  of  the  right  to 
"  the  British  of  navigating  the  Mississippi.     I  then  declared  myself 
5*  prepared  either  to  propose  Mr.  Gallatin's  article,  or  to  take  the 
"  ground,  that  the  whole  right  to  the  fisheries  was  recognised  as  a 
6<  part  of  our  national  independence  ;  that  it  could  not  be  abrogated 
"  by  the  war,  and  needed  no  stipulation  for  its  renewal.    Mr.  Clay 
c4  was  averse  to  either  of  the  courses  proposed,  and  said  that  after 
*«  all  if  the  British  plenipotentaries  should  insist  upon  this  point,  we 
"  should  all  finally  sign  the  treaty  without  the  provision  respect- 
"  ing  the  fishery.     Mr  Russell  expressed  some  doubt  whether  he 
"  would  sign  without  it ;  and  I  explicitly  declared  that  I  would  not, 
c(  without  further  instructions — J  could  not  say  that  I  would,  with 
"  them." 

5  November,  1814.     "  The  article  concerning  the  fisheries  and 
"  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  as  drawn  by  Mr.  Gallatm  was 
"  further  debated,  and  the  vote  taken  upon  it.     Mr.  Clay  and  Mr. 
"  Russell  voted  against  it — Mr.  Bayard,  Mr.  Gallatin,  and  myself 
c<  for  proposing  it.     After  the  vote  was  taken,  Mr.  Clay  said  that 
*'  he  should  not  sign  the  communication  by  which  the  proposal 
"  would  be  made." 

7  November,  1814.  "Mr.  Clay  proposed  a  paragraph  for  the 
"  note  to  be  sent  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  as  a  substitute  in- 
"  stead  of  the  article  respecting  the  fisheries  and  the  navigation  of 
"  the  Mississippi,  which  had  passed  by  vote  on  Saturday.  Mr. 
<{  Clay  said,  that  in  declaring  at  that  time  that  he  should  not  sign 
(l  the  note  accompanying  the  project,  if  it  included  Mr.  Gallatin's 
£'  article,  he  had  not  intended  that  it  should  in  any  manner  affect 
'« the  rainds  of  any  of  us.  If  the  article  should  be  proposed  and 
"  accepted,  and  a  treaty  otherwise  not  exceptionable  should  be 
"  obtainable  he  might  perhaps  ultimately  accede  to  it ;  but  the 
"  object  was  in  his  view  so  important,  that  he  could  not  reconcile 
**  it  to  himself  to  agree  in  making  the  proposal.  His  proposed  pa- 
"  ragraph  took  the  ground  which  I  had  originally  suggested  that  all 
*'•  the  fishery  rights  formed  a  part  of  the  recognition  of  our  Inde- 
**  pendence,  and  as  such,  were  by  our  instructions  excluded  from 
"  discussion.  I  said  I  should  have  preferred  the  proposal  of  Mr. 
11  Gallatin's  article,  as  placing  the  subject  out  of  controversy  ;  but 
: '  that  as  we  could  not  be  unanimous  for  that,  \  was  willing  to  take 


167 

"  Mr.  Clay's  paragraph,  by  which  we  should  reserve  all  our  rights, 
"  and  at  the  same  time  execute  our  instructions.  Mr.  Bayard  said, 
"  that  rather  than  differ  among  ourselves,  he  would  agree  to  sub- 
"  stitute  Mr.  Clay's  paragraph,  instead  of  the  proposed  article,  and 
"  this  was  ultimately  assented  to  by  us  all." 

Mr.  Russell  has  taken  infinite  pains  to  fasten  exclusively  upon 
me,  the  imputation  of  being  the  only  asserter  of  this  doctrine,  that 
from  the  peculiar  character  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  and  from  the 
nature  of  the  fishing  rights  and  liberties,  they  had  none  of  them 
been  abrogated  by  the  war,  and  needed  no  new  stipulation  to  pre 
serve  them.  And  it  is  this  doctrine,  which  in  the  calmness  of  his 
urbanity  he  styles  the  dream  of  a  visionary. 

I  certainly  never  should  have  claimed  the  credit  of  having  been 
alone  in  the  assertion  of  this  principle.  I  should  have  been  wil 
ling  that  all  rny  colleagues,  who  united  with  me  in  asserting  it  in 
the  note  of  10th  November,  1814,  at  Ghent,  signed  by  them  all, 
should  have  gone  through  life  with  the  credit,  and  have  left  to  pos 
terity  the  reputation,  of  having  had  each  an  equal  share  in  this 
assertion.  But  Mr.  Russell  has  effectually  disclaimed  all  his  portion 
of  it,  and  its  consequences.  He  has  represented  it  as,  on  the  part 
of  the  minority,  a  PRETEXT  to  preserve  the  Jishing  privilege,  and  to 
get  rid  of  a  proposition  confirmative  of  the  British  right  to  the  na 
vigation  of  the  Mississippi.  He  says  he  does  not  recollect  that  any 
member  of  the  mission,  except  myself,  appeared  to  be  a  very  zeal 
ous  believer  in  that  doctrine.  I  thank  Mr.  Russell  for  that  concession. 
If  there  was  moral  virtue  or  has  been  successful  result  in  the  asser 
tion  of  that  principle  to  preserve  the  fishing  liberties,  I  ask  no  more 
than  an  equal  share  in  the  esteem  of  my  country,  for  having  assert 
ed  it,  with  those  of  my  colleagues  who  are  yet  willing  to  bear  the 
imputation,  not  as  a  pretext,  but  with  sincerity  of  heart,  and  as  very 
zealous  believers  in  it.  But  were  every  other  living  member  of 
the  mission  to  say,  and  were  the  spirit  of  Bayard  from  the  tomb  to 
join  with  them  and  declare,  that  they  assumed  this  principle  only 
in  the  spirit  of  compromise,  and  as  a  pretext,  but  that  they  con 
sidered  it  only  as  the  dream  of  a  visionary,  I  would  answer — the 
dream  of  the  visionary  was  an  honest  dream.  He  believed  what  he 
affirmed  and  subscribed.  And,  I  might  confidently  add,  it  has  saved 
your  fisheries.  Nor  should  I  need  other  pi  oof,  than  the  negotia 
tions  with  Great  Britain  since  the  peace,  and  the  convention  of 
1818. 

I  would  further  observe,  thai;  if  the  principle  was  assumed  by 
the  minority  in  the  spirit  of  compromise,  that  spirit  was  much  more 
strongly  manifested  by  the  majority,  and  particularly  by  me,  in  ac 
cepting  this  substitute,  instead  of  the  article  proposed  by  Mr.  Gal- 
latin.  I  shall  assuredly  never  deny,  that  from  the  time  when  the 
British  plenipotentiaries  notified  to  us,  that  their  government  did 
not  intend  to  grant  the  fishing  liberties  without  an  equivalent,  I 
felt  an  inexpressible  solicitude  for  their  preservation.  I  have  al 
ready  remarked  that  this  notification  was  made  interms  so  indefinite, 


168 

that  its  object  apparently  was  to  exclude  us  from  the  whole  of  the 
Newfoundland,  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  and  Labrador  fisheries.  Mr. 
Russell  has  not  ventured  to  contest  this  position  ;  nor  could  he 
have  contested  it  with  success.  The  notification,  as  entered  upon 
the  protocol  of  conference  of  8th  August,  1814,  made  up  jointly 
by  both  parties,  was  as  follows  : 

"  The  British  commissioners  requested  information,  whether 
u  the  American  commissioners  were  instructed  to  enter  into  nego- 
"  tiation  on  the  above  points  ?  But  before  they  desired  any  answer, 
"they  felt  it  right  to  communicate  the  intentions  of  their  govern- 
"  ment  as  to  the  North  American  fisheries,  viz.  That  the  British 
"•  government  did  not  intend  to  grant  to  the  United  States,  gratu- 
"  itously.  the  privileges  formerly  granted  by  treaty  to  them,  of 
"fishing  within  the  limits  of  the  British  sovereignty,  and  of  using 
**  the  shores  of  the  British  territories  for  purposes  connected  with 
"  the  fisheries."  Wait's  State  Papers,  vol.  9,  p.  330. 

The  remark  upon  it,  made  by  the  American  mission,  in  their 
letter  to  the  Secretary  of  State  of  12th  August,  1814,  was  this  : 

"  The  extent  of  what  was  considered  by  them  as  waters  pecu- 
'•*  liarly  British,  was  not  stated.  From  the  manner  in  which  they 
"•  brought  this  subject  into  view,  they  seemed  to  wish  us  to  under- 
**  stand,  that  they  were  not  anxious  that  it  should  be  discussed,  and 
"  that  they  only  intended  to  give  us  notice,  that  these  privileges 
**  had  ceased  to  exist,  and  would  not  be  again  granted  without  an 
*'  equivalent,  nor  unless  we  thought  proper  to  provide  expressly  in 
*'  the  treaty  of  peace  for  their  renewal."  Ibid,  p.  321. 

And  what  were  the  limits  of  British  sovereignty,  as  to  the  North 
American  fisheries  ?  Ask  the  Abbe  Raynal. 

"  According  to  natural  right,  the  fishery  upon  the  great  bank 
"  ought  to  have  been  common  to  all  mankind  ;  notwithstanding 
"  which,  the  two  powers  that  had  formed  colonies  in  North  Ame- 
t(  rica,  have  made  very  little  difficulty  of  appropriating  it  to  them- 
tl  selves.  Spain,  who  alone  could  have  any  claim  to  it,  and  who, 
"  from  the  number  of  her  monks,  might  have  pleaded  the  necessi- 
"  ty  of  asserting  it,  entirely  gave  up  the  matter  at  the  last  peace, 
"  since  which  time  the  English  and  French  are  the  only  nations 
"  that  frequent  these  latitudes."  Raynal1  s  Historyt  book  17. 

Ask  the  commentator  on  the  marine  ordinance  of  Louis  XIV, 
Vafin.  After  assigning  soundings,  as  the  extent  of  sovereign  juris 
diction,  upon  the  sea,  in  regard  to  fisheries,  he  says  : 

"  As  to  the  right  of  fishing  upon  the  Bank  of  Newfoundland,  a? 
"  that  island,  which  is  as  it  were,  the  seat  of  this  fishery,  then  be- 
"  longed  to  France,  it  was  so  held  by  the  French,  that  other  nations 
c<  could  naturally  fish  there  only  by  virtue  of  the  treaties.  This 
"  has  since  changed,  by  means  of  the  cession  of  the  Island  of  New- 
**  foundland,  made  to  the  English,  by  the  treaty  of  Utrecht;  but 
''  Loins  XIV,  at  the  time  of  that  cession,  made  an  express  reserva- 


169 

•<  tion  of  the  right  of  fishing  upon  the  Bank  of  Newfoundland,  ia 
;t  favour  of  the  French,  as  before."     Valin,  vol.  2,  p.  693. 

And  Jr.  Jefferson,  in  his  Report  on  the  Fisheries,  of  1st  Febru 
ary,  1791,  had  said  : 

"  Spain  had  formerly  relinquished  her  pretensions  to  a  partici- 
*  pation  in  these  fisheries,  at  the  close  of  the  preceding  war  :  and 
1  at  the  end  of  this,  the  adjacent  continent  and  islands  being  divided 
'  between  the  United  States,  the  English,  and  French,  (for  the  last 
'  retained  two  small  islands  merely  for  this  object,)  the  right  of  fish- 
'  ing  was  appropriated  to  them  also." 

I  did  not  entertain  a  doubt  that  the  object  of  the  British  govern 
ment  then  was,  to  exclude  us  from  the  whole  of  this  fishery,  unless 
upon  our  own  coast ;  nor  do  1  now,  that  if  we  had  then  acquiesced 
in  their  principle,  they  would  have  excluded  us  from  it  after  the 
peace  entirely. 

I  did,  therefore,  feel  a  deep  and  earnest  solicitude  for  them. 
Nor  was  that  solicitude  allayed  by  the  discovery  that  there  was  in 
the  heart  of  the  mission  itself,  a  disposition  and  an  influence  operat 
ing  against  them  almost  as  inflexibly,  and,  in  my  estimation,  far 
more  dangerously,  than  the  British  adversary  himself. 

There  were  but  two  possible  ways,  after  the  British  notification, 
of  preserving  these  rights  and  liberties  from  total  extinction.  The 
one  was,  by  obtaining  a  new  recognition  of  them  in  the  treaty,  which 
could  not  be  done  without  offering  an  equivalent  ;  and  the  other 
was,  by  asserting  that  they  had  not  been  forfeited  by  the  war,  and 
would  remain  in  full  vigour,  although  the  treaty  should  be  conclud 
ed  without  such  an  article. 

In  preparing  the  draught  of  the  treaty,  Mr.  Gallatinhad  drawn  an 
article,  stipulating  anew  the  recognition,  and  offering,  as  the  equiva 
lent,  the  recognition  of  the  British  right  to  navigate  the  Mississippi, 
contained  in  the  same  treaty  of  1783,  and  of  which  the  British  ple 
nipotentiaries  had  demanded  the  renewal. 

Mr.  Gallatin  was  a  citizen  of  the  Western  Country,  and  as  inca 
pable  as  any  other  member  of  the  mission,  of  sacrificing  an  essen 
tial  interest  of  one  quarter  of  the  Union,  to  a  minor  interest  of  ano 
ther.  I  was,  therefore,  profoundly  mortified  to  see  his  article  ob 
jected  to  on  a  principle  of  conflicting  sectional  interest,  and  still 
more  so,  to  hear  Mr.  Russell  observe,  after  his  opinion  had  been 
disclosed  by  his  vote,  that  the  fisheries  were  an  interest  of  a  disaf 
fected  part  of  the  country.  I  was  as  far  as  Mr.  Russell  from  ap 
proving  the  policy  or  the  measures  then  predominating  in  New- 
England  :  but  to  cast  away  and  surrender  to  the  enemy  the  birth 
right  of  my  country,  an  interest  as  lasting  as  the  ocean  and  the  shores 
of  my  native  land,  for  a  merely  momentary  aberration,  rather  of  its 
legislature  than  its  people,  was  so  far  from  meeting  my  concur 
rence,  that  it  sickened  my  soul  to  hear  it  hinted  from  one  of  her 
own  sons. 

Considered  merely  and  exclusively  with  reference  to  sectional 
interests,  Mr.  Gallatin's  proposed  article  was  fair  and  just.     It  pro- 


no 

posed  that  both  interests  should  be  placed  on  the  sdtne  looting  on 
which  they  had  stood  before  the  war.  The  first  and  paramount 
duty  of  the  government  was  to  bring  the  nation  out  of  the  war, 
with  all  its  great  interests  preserved.  It  was  not  to  gain  an  advan 
tage  for  one  section,  by  the  loss  of  an  advantage  to  another.  The 
principle  of  Mr.  Gallatin's  article  was,  that  neither  section  should 
gain  or  lose  by  the  issue  of  the  war.  The  principle  of  the  objec 
tion  to  it  was,  that  the  West  should  gain,  by  the  sacrifice  of  the  in 
terest  of  the  East :  and  the  main  motive  assigned  for  it  was,  that 
the  East  was  a  disaffected  part  of  the  country. 

Much,  too,  was.  said  of  the  comparative  value  of  the  two  liber 
ties  ;  not  by  Mr.  Russell,  who  had  not  then  made,  or  at  least  did 
not  disclose,  his  notable  discovery  of  incessant  fogs,  and  their  dele 
terious  effects  upon  the  fisheries.  But  doubts  were  expressed,  on 
one  side,  whether  the  fisheries  were  of  much  value  :  and  opinions 
were  very  confidently  expressed,  on  the  other,  th-it  the  navigation 
of  the  Mississippi  would  be  to  the  British  of  no  value.  Neither 
evidence  nor  argument  was  adduced  to  show  the  small  value  of  the 
fisheries.  But  that  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  would  be  to 
the  British  of  no  value,  and  of  no  injury  to  us,  was  proved,  first, 
by  the  experience  of  thirty  years,  from  the  peace  of  1783  to  the 
war  of  1812,  during  which  they  had  possessed  it  without  inconve 
nience  to  us  or  benefit  to  themselves  ;  secondly,  by  the  apparent 
fact,  that  after  abandoning  their  claim  to  a  boundary  line  to  the 
Mississippi,  and  consequently  the  power  of  ever  forming  any  settle 
ment  upon  its  banks,  there  was  neither  present  nor  prospective 
interest,  which  could  make  the  mere  right  of  navigating  it  down 
wards  to  the  ocean,  of  any  value  to  them.  It  was  absolutely  noth 
ing  more  than  a  right  of  travelling  upon  a  highway  ;  and  all  rational 
foresight,  as  well  as  all  past  experience,  led  to  the  conclusion,  that 
the  privilege  would  remain  as  it  had  been,  merely  nominal.  The 
objections  against  this  reasoning  were  all  speculation  against  fact ; 
all  surmises  of  what  might  be  in  future,  against  the  uniform  tenour 
of  what  had  been  before.  When,  afterwards,  the  proposition  of  the 
first  of  December  was  actually  made  to  the  British  plenipotentia 
ries,  the  immediate  rejection  of  it  by  their  government,  and  the 
reasons  which  they  assigned  for  rejecting  it,  demonstrated  that  they 
considered  it  at  least  no  equivalent  for  the  part  of  the  fisheries,  of 
which  they  intended  to  deprive  us  :  and  their  final  abandonment, 
without  any  equivalent,  of  all  claim  to  it,  in  negotiating  the  conven 
tion  of  181 8,  completed  the  proof  that  they  had  always  considered 
it  as  a  mere  name,  the  only  use  they  ever  could  make  of  which  was 
to  obtain,  if  they  could,  something  for  renouncing  it.* 

*  I  take  this  opportunity  to  rectify  an  inaccuracy  in  the  statement  of  my  re 
marks  upon  Mr.  Russell's  letter,  that  at  the  negotiation  of  that  Convention,  the 
navigation  of  the  Mississippi  was  not  even  asked  by  the  British.  On  recurring 
to  the  documents  of  that  negotiation,  I  find  that  it  was  asked,  but  easily  aban 
doned.  Our  Negotiators  were  instructed  not  to  accede  to  .it. 


171 

Mr.  Russell  says,  that  1  expressed  at  Ghent  my  great  contempt  of 
;he  British  right  to  reach  and  navigate  the  Mississippi  :  and  Mr. 
Russell's  motive  for  using  this  expression  is  as  apparent  as  it  is  invi- 
iious.  1  never,  at  Ghent  or  elsewhere,  expressed  contempt  of  this 
right,  otherwise  than  by  maintaining,  that  in  the  nature  of  things  it 
must  and  would  he,  as  it  had  been,  a  naked  right  without  use  ;  of  no 
value  to  them,  and  of  no  damage  to  us.  For  this  opinion  my  rea 
sons  are  now  before  the  public  ;  and  if  a  solid  answer  to  them  can 
oe  given,  I  shall  be  ready  to  acknowledge  that  I  have  been  mistaken 
in  entertaining  it.  But  I  shall  not  take  for  such  answer,  any  thing 
[hat  was  said  at  (jhent  ;  and  much  less  any  thing;  since  alleged  by 
Mr.  Russell.  I  shall  not  take  for  an  answer,  the  immense  import 
ance  TO  us  of  the  Mississippi  and  its  navigation.  No  man  has  a 
deeper  sense  of  it  than  I  have  ;  but  it  has  no  bearing  on  the  ques 
tion.  The  navigation  of  the  Rhine  is  of  immense  importance  to  the 
people  of  Germany  and  of  France.  There  are  treaties,  by  which 
the  right  to  this  navigation,  both  ascending  and  descending,  is  stipu 
lated  for  all  mankind.*  The  people  of  the  United  States  enjoy  it 
as  much  as  the  people  of  France  or  of  Germany.  Is  it  of  any  va 
lue  to  us  ?  Is  it  of  any  injury  to  them  ?  I  shall  not  take  for  an 
answer  Mr  Russell's  perpetual  mis-statements  of  the  question  ; 
his  perpetual  confounding  of  the  article  first  proposed  by  Mr.  Gal- 
latin,  which  was  never  proposed  to  the  British,  with  the  amend 
ment  to  the  8th  article,  which  was  proposed  to  them  and  rejected  ; 
hi*  -/erpetual  confounding  of  both  with  the  3d  article  of  the  treaty 
of  1794.  Mr.  Russell  says  he  has  good  reason  to  oelieve,  that  not 
another  member  of  the  mission  agreed  with  me  in  this  opinion. 
The  best  possible  proof  that  Mr.  Russell  himself  entertained  it,  is 
found  in  the  straits  to  which  he  is  reduced  to  muster  arguments 
against  it.  His  ingenuity  cannot  devise  a  plausible  objection  to  the 
proposal  as  it  was  made  :  so  he  substitutes  in  its  stead,  at  one  time 
the  article  first  proposed  by  Mr.  Gallatin,  and  never  offered  ;  at 
another,  the  third  article  of  the  treaty  of  1794  ;  at  a  third,  his  con 
jectural  inferences  of  abuses  which  might  be  made  of  the  privi 
lege,  as  if  the  United  States  would  have  had  no  power  to  control 
them.  His  argument  is  never  against  the  proposal  as  it  "was  made. 
It  is  always  against  the  substitute  of  his  own  imagination.  Mark 
his  words: 

"  It  would  be  absurd  to  suppose  that  any  thing  impossible  was 
"  intended,  and  that  Great  Britain  was  to  be  allowed  to  navigate 

*  "  The  navigation  of  the  Rhine,  from  the  point  where  it  becomes  navigable 
"  unto  the  sea,  and  vice  versa,  shall  be  free,  so  that  it  can  be  interdicted  to  no 
11  one  :  and  at  the  future  Congress,  attention  shall  be  paid  to  the  establishment 
**  of  the  principles,  according  to  which  the  duties  to  be  raised  by  the  states  bor- 
"  dering  on  the  Rhine,  may  be  regulated,  in  the  mode  the  most  impartial,  and 
"  the  most  favourable  to  the  commerce  of  all  nations.'*  [Definitive  Treaty  be 
tween  France  and  Great  Britain,  of  30  May,  1814.] 

The  same  stipulation  is  contained  in  the  Vienna  Congress  Treaties,  and  ex~ 
tended  to  the  Necker,  the  Mayne,  the  Mosellej  the  IVJeuse,  and  the  Scheldt, 


172 

"  the  Mississippi  precisely  as  she  could  have  navigated  it 
"  diately  after  the  treaty  of  1783;  as  if  her  territories  extended 
"  to  it,  and  as  if  Spain  was  in  entire  possession  of  one  of  its  banks, 
"  and  of  a  considerable  portion  of  the  other.  The  revival  of  the 
"  British  right  to  navigate  the  Mississippi,  would  be,  under  exist- 
*'  ing  circumstances,  a  new  and  complete  grant  to  her,  measured  by 
"  these  circumstances,  and  thence  embracing  not  only  the  entire 
"  freedom  of  the  whole  extent  of  the  river,  but  the  unrestrained 
"  access  to  it  across  our  territories.  If  we  did  not  intend  this,  we 
ic  intended  nothing  which  Great  Britain  could  accept." 

Now  observe  the  amendment  to  the  8th  article  of  the  projected 
treaty,  as  it  was  proposed  on  the  1st  of  December,  1814,  and  re 
jected  : 

"  The  inhabitants  of  the  United  States  shall  continue  to  enjoy  the 
ct  liberty  to  take,  dry,  and  cure  fish,  in  places  within  the  exclusive 
"jurisdiction  of  Great  Britain,  as  secured  by  the  former  treaty  of 
"  peace  ;  and  the  navigation  of  the  river  Mississippi,  within  the 
"  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  shall  remain  free  and 
*'  open  to  the  subjects  of  Great  Britain,  in  the  manner  secured  by  the 
"  said  treaty ;  and  it  is  further  agreed  that  the  subjects  of  his  Bri- 
"  tannic  majesty  shall  at  all  times  have  access,  from  such  place  as 
ct  may  be  selected  for  that  purpose,  in  his  Britannic  majesty's  afore- 
'*  said  territories,  west,  and  within  300  miles  of  the  Lake  of  the 
"  Woods,  in  the  aforesaid  territories  of  the  United  States,  to  the 
"  river  Mississippi,  in  order  to  enjoy  the  benefit  of  the  navigation 
"  of  that  river,  with  their  goods,  effects,  and  merchandise,  whose 
"  importation  into  the  said  States  shall  not  be  entirely  prohibited, 
"  on  the  payment  of  the  same  duties  as  would  be  payable  on  the 
""  importation  of  the  same  into  the  Atlantic  ports  of  the  said  States, 
"  and  on  conforming  with  the  usual  custom-house  regulations." 

After  reading  this,  if  you  inquire  how  it  was  possible  for  Mr.  Rus 
sell  to  say,  in  the  passage  of  his  letter  immediately  preceding  it,  that 
we  offered  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  to  the  British  otherwise 
than  as  it  had  beeri  secured  to  them  by  the  treaty  of  1783,  and  that 
we  offered  them  unrestrained  access  to  it  across  our  territories  ; 
the  only  possible  answer  to  the  question  will  be,  that  it  was  neces 
sary  for  his  argument  to  say  so  ;  for  the  very  proposition  which  he 
says  was  nothing  which  Great  Britain  could  accept,  was  the  identi 
cal  proposition  which  we  did  make,  and  which  she  did  not  accept. 
We  did  offer,  in  express  terms,  and  in  no  others,  the  navigation,  in 
the  manner  secured  by  the  treaty  of  1783.  We  offered  the  access 
to  it,  restrained  to  a  single  point  of  departure,  300  miles  west  of 
the  Lake  of  the  Woods  ;  restrained  to  the  admission  only  of  goods 
not  prohibited,  to  the  payment  of  duties  on  merchandise  admitted, 
and  to  compliance  with  all  the  custom-house  regulations.  Mr.  Rus 
sell  says  that  it  embraced  the  entire  freedom  of  the  whole  extent 
of  the  river.  And  so  it  did  at  the  peace  of  1783  :  for  it  was  then 
secured  to  Great  Britain,  not  only  by  the  treaty  with  the  United 


173 

States,  but  by  her  trenties  with  Spain  ;  secured  indeed  in 
far  more  unrestrained  than  in  our  proposal  ;  for  by  the  treaties 
with  Spain,  she  was  entitled  to  the  passage  both  in  and  out  of  the 
mouth  of  the  river,  and  that  none  of  her  vessels  should  be  stopped, 
visited,  or  subjected  to  the  payment  of  any  duty  whatsoever.  The 
right,  therefore,  which  she  would  have  held  under  the  proposal  of 
1st  December,  1814,  would  have  been,  so  far  as  our  original  territo 
ry  extended,  precisely  the  same  as  by  her  treaty  with  us  of  1783  ; 
and  so  far  ns  related  to  the  territory  which  had  belonged  to  Spain, 
in  1783,  infinitely  more  restricted  than  it  had  been  under  her  trea 
ties  with  Spain.  Yet  under  all  the  advantages  of  the  right  as  se 
cured  to  her  by  her  treaties  with  Spain,  it  never  had  been  of  any 
•jse  to  her  ;  for  the  simple  reason  that  she  had  no  settlement  on  the 
river.  Now,  her  boundary,  as  with  us,  remained,  at  the  negotia 
tion  of  Ghent,  precisely  the  same  as  it  had  been  agreed  upon  at  the 
peace  of  1783.  She  had  formed  no  settlement  on  the  river;  but 
tehe  was  entitled  by  that  treaty  to  a  line  from  the  Lake  of  the  Woods 
to  it.  We  proposed  to  her  a  new  line,  which  would  cut  her  off 
from  it  ;  which  she  offered  to  accept,  with  the  reservation  of  the 
right  to  navigate  the  river.  All  the  change,  therefore,  between 
the  right  which  Great  Britain  had  enjoyed  under  the  treaties  of 
1783,  and  that  which  she  would  have  enjoyed  under  our  proposal 
of  1814,  was  to  (he  disadvantage  of  Great  Britain,  and  went  to  the 
annulment  of  the  value  to  her,  even  contingent  and  eventual,  of  the 
right. 

The  worthlessness  to  the  British  of  this  right  of  navigating  the 
Mississippi,  had  been  very  distinctly  perceived,  and  clearly  pointed 
out  in  the  debates,  in  the  British  Parliament,  on  the  preliminary 
articles  of  peace  of  November,  1782.  On  that  occasion,  the  Earl 
of  Carlisle  said,  in  the  House  of  Lords  : 

*'  But  we  keep  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi !  and  so  we  might 
"  say  that  we  keep  that  of  the  Rhone  or  the  Rhine.  We  are  not 
"  possessed,  for  3000  miles,  of  a  single  acre  of  its  shores  :  and 
*'  West  Florida,  where  the  Mississippi  meets  the  sea,  is  by  the 
"  treaty  in  the  hands  of  the  Spaniards.  To  what  sort  of  under- 
"  standings  is  this  fallacy  addressed,  or  for  what  description  of  ra- 
*'  tional  beings  is  this  delusion  calculated  V 

Lord  Walsingham  : — "  Nothing  could  be,  so  absurd  as  to  stipulate 
c<  for  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  and  yet  cut  off  all  communi- 
w  cation  with  it.  What  was  meant  by  the  navigation  of  the  Missis- 
44  sippi,  as  agreed  on  in  the  treaty,  he  professed  he  could  not  tell." 

Viscount  Stormont — "  exposed  in  glaring  colours  the  folly  of 
ic  stipulating  for  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  when  every  thing 
«  that  could  make  the  Mississippi  valuable,  was  gone.  We  had  no 
"  coast;  there  was  no  junction  even  with  the  Lakes  ;  no  commu- 
"  nication  by  which  we  could  transport  our  furs  to  any  market,  Iu 
*'  short,  the  article  for  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  was  an  in- 
"  suit  on  our  understandings,  added  to  all  the  injuries  done,  tn  om 
"  property  by  the  present  peace." 


174 

Viscount  Sackville  :—"  All  the  forts  were  on  the  American  side  5 
*'  the  immense  district  of  country  which  supplied  us  with  masts  was 
"  gone  ;  the  Indian  nations  were  abandoned  ;  and  we  were  insult- 
"  ed  with  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  when  all  its  benefits 
"  were  taken  away." 

To  all  this,  the  only  reply  of  the  minister,  the  Earl  of  Shel- 
burne,  was  : 

"  The  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  has  been  reprobated  as  an 
"  useless  acquisition.  Could  men  seriously  assert  this  ?  Was  a 
"  navigation  of  so  many  hundred  miles  up  a  country  where  there 
"  is  a  call  for  our  manufactures,  an  useless  tiling  ?  Surely  not." 

[Hansard's  Parliamentary  History,  vol.  23. 

In  the  House  of  Commons,  lord  North  said  : 

**  There  seems  to  he  a  peculiar  mockery  in  the  article  which 
"  grants  us  an  eternal  and  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  from 
"  its  source  to  the  ocean,  in  participation  with  the  United  States. 
"  Such  is  the  freedom  of  the  navigation,  that  where  we  were  not 
*'  locally  excluded,  we  have  effected  it  by  treaty  We  were  ex- 
"  eluded  by  the  northern  boundary.  The  east  is  possessed  by  the 
u  Americans.  The  west  had  been  ceded  by  the  peace  of  Paris  to 
"  the  French,  who  had  since  granted  it  to  the  Spaniards  ;  and  each 
"  shore,  at  its  mouth,  is  ceded  by  the  present  treaty  to  Spain. — 
<c  Where  is  then  this  navigation,  so  free  and  open,  to  be  commenced  1 
"  All  the  possession,  I  believe,  that  we  shall  ever  have,  will  be  its 
"  nomination  in  this  treaty.  We  must  be  content  with  the  grant, 
"  without  the  possession."  p.  451. 

Mr.  Fox  : — "  By  the  boundaries  which  have  been  so  carelessly 
c<  prescribed,  we  have  excluded  ourselves  from  the  Mississippi  ; 
"  so  that  we  only  retain  the  name,  without  being  able  to  enjoy  its 
"  possession."  p  535, 

To  these  objections,  no  reply  was  made  in  the  House  of  Com 
mons.  They  were  all  grounded  on  the  very  obvious  principle  that 
the  mere  right  of  navigating  a  river  from  its  source  to  the  ocean> 
can  be  of  no  use  to  a  nation,  Caving  no  settlement  on  the  river  ; 
yet,  at  that  time,  as  Great  Britain  retained  a  boundary  line  to  the 
river,  she  might  have  subsequently  formed  a  settlement  upon  it 
which  would  have  given  value  to  the  right.  At  the  time  of  the 
treaty  of  Ghent,  thirty  years  of  experience  had  proved  the  cor 
rectness  of  those  views  by  which  the  right  of  navigating  the  Mis 
sissippi,  reserved  to  the  British  by  the  treaties  of  1783,  had  been 
represented  as  merely  nominal  and  worthless  ;  and  by  the  propos 
ed  8th  article  of  the  treaty,  Great  Britain  was  to  abandon  her  claim 
even  of  ever  coming  in  territorial  contact  with  the  river. 

Until  a  better  answer,  therefore,  than  this  can  be  given  to  the 
opinion  that  the  proposal  offered  to  the  British  would  have  been, 
if  accepted,  of  no  value  to  them,  and  of  no  injury  to  us,  I  shall  take 
*he  liberty  to  consider  it  as  demonstrated.  Nor  will  it  be  sufficient 


175 

for  Mr.  Russell  to  say,  that  he  still  differs  in  opinion  with  me,  and 
will  probably  continue  to  differ  in  opinion  with  me,  on  this  point  : 
for  1  have  proved  from  his  o\vn  words  that  his  opinion  did  not 
differ  from  mine,  as  to  the  proposal  actually  made ;  and  if  he  does 
differ  with  me  now,  it  is  only  in  as  much  as  he  differs  with  himself. 

As  to  the  value,  the  comparative  value  of  the  fisheries  to  us,  with 
this  admission  of  a  mere  naked  right  in  foreigners  to  travel  on  one 
of  our  high-ways,  constitutionally  declared  to  be  forever  free  to  all 
the  citizens  of  every  State  in  the  Union,  I  cannot  agnin  withhold 
my  surprize  that  it  should  be  denied,  by  a  citizen  of  Massachusetts. 
If  a  citizen  of  Georgia  should  publish  a  laborious  argument  to 
prove  that  the  right  of  cultivating  cotton,  or  a  citizen  of  Louisiana 
should  maintain  that  the  right  of  raising  sugar,  was  of  no  value  to 
the  people  of  the  United  States,  is  it  to  the  derision  or  to  the  indig 
nation  of  his  country,  that  his  dissertation  would  prove  the  most 
effectual  passport.?  And  if  such  an  argument  should  be  written, 
not  as  an  idle  amusement  to  show  with  how  much  ingenuity  the 
wildest  absurdities  might  be  maintained,  but  as  a  grave  state-paper, 
addressed  to  the  supreme  authority  of  the  Union,  striking  directly, 
not  at  the  mere  theoretical  right,  but  at  the  actual  exercise  of  it  by 
the  citizens  of  Georgia  or  of  Louisiana,  and  directly  tending,  in  con 
currence  with  a  foreign  power  contesting  it,  to  deprive  them  of  it 
forever — what  would  the  people  of  Georgia  and  Louisiana,  what 
would  the  people  of  the  United  States,  say  to  such  a  citizen  ? — 
Should  it  further  appear,  that  this  very  citizen,  at  the  very  time  of 
his  composing  the  work,  was  a  member  of  a  commission  specially 
charged  and  instructed  to  defend  and  maintain,  against  the  most 
formidable  of  national  enemies,  the  same  right,  which  he  was  thus 
exercising  every  faculty  of  his  mind  irredeemably  to  destroy  ;  that 
after  subscribing  his  name  to  a  principle  containing  the  last  and  only 
defence  of  this  right,  While  the  contest  was  yet  pending,  and  he 
himself  was  yet  charged  with  its  support,  he  should  contradict  his 
own  signature,  exhaust  his  ingenuity  to  prove  the  principle  totally 
destitute  of  foundation,  and  style  it  the  dream  of  a  visionary,  to 
ridicule  one  of  his  colleagues  for  believing  it  ;  such  a  rare  combi 
nation  of  incidents  would  doubtless  present  a  moral  and  political 
character  to  the  contemplation  of  the  States  most  immediately  inte 
rested  in  his  conduct,  and  to  the  Union,  which  would  not  soon  be 
obliterated  from  their  memory. 

That  which  a  native  citizen  of  Georgia  or  of  Louisiana  would 
have  done,  under  the  circumstances  here  supposed,  if  the  right  of 
cultivating  cotton  or  sugar  had  been  at  stake,  Mr.  Russell,  a  native 
of  Massachusetts,  has  done,  in  the  hour  of  danger  to  her  fishery. 
The  Newfoundland,  Nova  Scotia,  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  and  La 
brador  fisheries,  are  in  nature,  and  in  the  consideration  both  of 
jfcheir  value  and  of  the  right  to  share  in  them,  one  fishery'.  To  be 
cut  off  from  the  enjoyment  of  that  right,  would  be  to  the  people  of 
Massachusetts,  a  calamity  similar  in  kind,  and  comparable  in  de 
gree,  with  an  interdict  to  the  people  of  Georgia  or  Louisiana  to 


176 

cultivate  cotton  or  sugar.  To  be  cut  off  even  from  that  portion  of 
it  which  was  within  the  exclusive  British  jurisdiction  in  the  strict 
est  sense,  within  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  and  on  the  coast  of  La 
brador,  would  have  been  like  an  interdict  upon  the  people  of 
Georgia  or  Louisiana  to  cultivate  with  cotton  or  sugar  three-fourths 
of  the  lands  of  those  respective  States.  The  fisheries  of  Massa 
chusetts  are  her  cotton  plants  and  her  sugar  canes.  She  is  not  blest 
with  the  genial  skies,  nor  gifted  with  the  prolific  soil,  of  southern 
climes  ;  but  that  which  nature  has  denied  to  her  shores,  she  has 
bestowed  upon  her  neighbouring  seas,  and  to  them  she  is  indebted 
for  copious  sources  of  nourishment  and  subsistence,  if  not  of  opu 
lence  and  splendour,  to  thousands  of  her  sons. 

Of  the  value  of  these  fisheries,  none  but  general  information  was 
possessed  by  the  American  negotiators  at  Ghent.  Their  instruc 
tions  *-ere,  not  to  inquire  into  their  value,  but  nut  to  surrender  any 
part  of  ihem.  After  the  peace  was  made,  while  Mr.  Russell  was 
intent  upon  his  discovery  that  they  were  worthless  by  reason  of 
incessant  fogs  and  humidities  of  atmosphere,  and  straining  his  dia 
lectic  powers  and  his  diplomatic  erudition,  to  prove  that  the  right 
to  them  was  irretrievably  lost,  I  was  impelled  by  my  sense  of 
duty  to  seek  more  particular  information  of  the  value  both  of  that 
fishery,  generally,  and  of  that  portion  of  it,  which,  by  the  most  re 
stricted  construction  of  the  notification  which  we  had  received, 
would  be  denied  us  if  that  notification  should  be  carried  into  effect. 
I  obtained  it  from  various  sources  ;  but  principally  from  one  of  the 
most  distinguished  merchants  and  statesmen  of  this  Union  :  and  as 
it  concerns  an  object  of  great  national  interest,  I  shall  publish  it, 
with  some  additional  observations  of  my  own.  It  will  have  the  ef 
fect  of  sunshine  upon  all  Mr.  Russell's  fogs. 

Immensely  valuable  as  it  will  prove  these  fisheries  to  be,  yet  if  the 
question  involved  in  the  article  first  proposed  by  Mr.  Gallatin  had 
been  such,  that  ./bile  securing  to  the  people  of  New  England  the 
continued  enjoyment  of  them,  it  would  in  any  the  slightest  degree 
have  unpaired  the  enjoyment,  by  the  people  of  the  Western 
Country,  of  their  right  to  navigate  the  Mississippi,  the  objection  to 
it  would  have  been  serious  and  great.  Could  it  have  affected  ma 
terially  their  enjoyment  of  that  right,  the  objection  would  have 
been  insuperable,  and  Mr.  Gallatin  never  would  have  thought  of 
making  the  proposal.  But  no  such  consequence  could  flow  from  it. 
The  people  of  the  West  are  left  by  it  in  the  full  enjoyment  of  all 
their  rights.  Nothing  was  taken  from  them.  But  British  subjects 
from  Canada  would  have  been  entitled  to  travel  by  land  or  water  t» 
the  river,  and  to  descend  in  boats  to  its  mouth.  They  now  enjoy 
the  right  as  much'as  they  would  have  enjoyed  it  if  the  article  had 
been  proposed  and  accepted.  The  only  difference  is,  that  they  now 
enjoy  it,  as  not  prohibited  by  law,  while  by  the  proposed  article  it 
would  have  been  secured  to  them  by  treaty. 

The  objection  to  Mr.  Gallatin's  proposed  article,  therefore,  was 
&n  objection  to  securing  to  New  England  the  continued  enjoyment 


177 

of  the  fisheries,  because  the  price  of  its  purchase  would  be  to  per 
mit  British  subjects  to  travel  a  highway  in  the  Western  Country. 
It  was  impossible  to  make  of  it  any  thing  more  ;  and  deeply  con 
cerned  as  I  felt  for  the  fate  of  the  fisheries,  1  greatly  regretted 
that  the  objection  was  made  to  it.  Not  that  I  expected  it  would  be 
accepted  by  the  British  plenipotentiaries.  1  too  well  knew  the 
value  which  they  set  upon  the  fisheries,  and  the  worthlessness  at 
which  they  must  estimate  the  naked  right  to  them  of  navigating  the 
Mississippi,  to  consider  it  as  probable  that  they  would  accept  the 
proposal.  But  our  duty  as  ministers  of  the  Union,  charged  with 
the  defence  of  all  its  rights  and  liberties  staked  upon  the  conflict, 
and  specially  instructed  not  to  surrender  the  fisheries,  was  to  use 
even/  fair  exertion  to  preserve  them.  And  Mr.  Gallatin's  proposal 
vvas'one  of  the  only  two  possible  modes  of  effecting  it. 

Nevertheless,  as  a  strong  and  earnest  opposition  to  proposing  the 
article  was  made,  avowedly  founded  upon  a  supposed  interest 
merely  sectional  ;  after  a  discussion  continued  through  six  succes 
sive  days,  at  the  last  of  which  only  I  had  taken  part,  and  before  the 
vote  was  taken,  I  did,  on  the  4th  of  November,  declare  myself  pre 
pared  either  to  propose  Mr.  Gallatin's  article,  or  to  take  the  ground 
that  all  the  rights  and  liberties  in  the  fisheries  were  recognised  as 
a  part  of  our  national  independence,  that  they  could  not  be  abro 
gated  by  the  war,  and  needed  no  stipulation  for  their  renewal — to 
assert  this  principle  in  the  note  to  be  sent  to  the  British  plenipo 
tentiaries,  with  the  project  of  the  treaty  3  and  to  omit  the  article 
altogether. 

Mr.  Russell,  in  the  acuteness  of  his  perceptions,  discovers  an  in 
consistency  between  these  two  opinions,     in  his  letter  from  Paris, 
he  charged  it  as  an  inconsistency  upon  the  majority  of  the  mission. 
In  the  Boston  Statesman  he  returns  to  it  as  an  inconsistency  of  mine. 
According  to  his  doctrine,  the  assertion  of  a  right  or  liberty,  is  incon  - 
Distent  with  the  oiler  of  a  stipulation  for  its  recognition.     The  first 
article  of  the  preliminaries,  of  November,  1782,  was,  according  to 
this   doctrine,   inconsistent  with  the  Declaration  of  Independence. 
Why  stipulate  for  a  right,  which  you  hold  by  virtue  of  your  own 
declaration  ?     I  cannot  waste  words  in  refuting  such    positions  as 
these.     So  of  the  pretended  inconsistency  of  stipulating  for  the  li 
berty,  leaving  the  right  to  the  fisheries  to  rest  upon  the  recognition 
in  the  treaty   of  1783.     The  stipulation  offered  was  co-extensive 
with  the  portion  of  right  contested  by  the  adverse  party.     There 
was  no  motive  tor  asking  a  stipulation  for  that  which  they  did  not 
question.      If  the   British  plenipotentiaries  had  not  notified  to  us 
that  they  considered  our  privileges  of  fishing  within   the  limits  cf 
British  sovereignty,  as  forfeited  by  the  war,  I  never  should  have 
thought  of  asking  a  n«w  stipulation  to  secure  them.     If  their  doc 
trine  and  Mr.  Russell's  was  right,  that  the  whole  treaty  of  1783  wyfc 
abrogated  by  the  war,  and   that  our  only  title  to  the  fishing  liber 
ties  was  a  grant  of  his  Britannic  majesty's,    in  that  treaty,  which, 
i>y  the  mere  existence  of  war,  was  totally  extinguished,  they 


J78 

under  no  necessity  whatever  to  give  us  that  notification.  They 
might  have  concluded  the  treaty  without  saying  a  word  about  the 
fisheries,  and  then  have  told  us  that  they  had  been  forfeited  by  the 
war.  But  they  knew  better.  They  knew  that  not  only  war,  but 
conquest,  was  necessary  to  wrest  from  us  any  right  or  liberty  recog 
nised  by  them  as  belonging  to  us  by  the  treaty  of  1783.  To  accom 
plish  this  conquest,  despairing  to  obtain  from  us  an  express  renun 
ciation  by  treaty,  as  they  had  obtained  it  from  Spain  in  1763,  they 
tried  to  obtain  it  by  means  of  our  acquiescence  in  this  notification  ; 
and  they  made  it  in  indefinite  terms,  seeming  to  strike  only  at  the 
portion  of  the  fisheries  within  their  most  restricted  territorial  ju 
risdiction,  but  susceptible,  if  once  acquiesced  in  by  us,  of  a  con 
struction  sanctioned  by  the  whole  history  and  public  law  relative 
to  those  fisheries,  which  would  deprive  us  of  them  all,  including 
those  of  the  Grand  Bank. 

The  article  proposed  by  Mr.  Gallatm  covered  the  whole  ground 
disputed  by  the  adversary  ;  and  the  advantage  of  it  to  us,  if  pro 
posed  and  accepted,  would  have  been,  that  we  should  have  issued 
from  the  war,  with  all  the  fishing  rights  and  liberties,  as  enjoyed 
before  it,  uncontested.  When,  therefore,  during  the  discussion, 
and  before  the  vote  had  been  taken,  I  offered  to  abandon  this  ad 
vantage,  and  to  rest  the  future  defence  of  the  fishing  rights  and 
liberties  upon  the  distinct  assertion  that  they  had  not  been  forfeited 
or  abrogated  by  the  war,  by  thus  resting  it,  I  knew  that  it  would 
be  necessary  to  defend  them,  after  the  conclusion  of  the  peace — 
to  defend  them  against  the  power,  and  the  policy,  and  the  intel 
lect  of  Great  Britain.  It  was  placing  them  all  at  the  hazard  of 
future  negotiation  and  another  war  :  and  1  thought  I  offered  a 
signal  concession,  of  deference  to  the  mere  sectional  feelings  of 
one  western  member  of  the  mission,  by  offering  to  accept  the  al 
ternative.  But  I  felt  the  most  entire  confidence  in  the  soundness 
of  the  principle  which  I  asserted.  I  knew  that  it  was  sufficient  to 
preserve  the  fishing  rights  and  liberties  from  surretider.  I  was 
content  with  it  as  a  fulfilment  of  our  express  instructions  ;  and  I 
relied  upon  the  determined  spirit  and  active  energy  of  my  country 
to  maintain  it  after  the  peace.  I  had  no  doubt  of  the  ultimate  re 
sult,  so  long  as  our  assent  to  the  British  doctrine  and  notification, 
was  neither  expressed  nor  implied. 

My  proposal  was  not  however  accepted,  until,  upon  taking  the 
vote  on  the  question  whether  the  article  proposed  by  Mr.  (iallatin 
should  be  offered  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  it  appeared  there 
was  a  majority  of  the  mission  in  favour  of  it.  This  vote  was  taken 
as  has  been  stated,  on  the  5th  of  November  ;  and  on  the  7th  the 
substitute,  being  the  proposition  which  1  had  suggested  on  the  4th, 
was  offered  by  Mr.  Clay,  and  unanimously  accepted.  The  article 
was  not  proposed  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  nor  was  the  con 
sideration  of  it  ever  after  resumed. 

This  transaction,  therefore,  was  totally  distinct  from  that  of  the 
and  29th  of  November  :  and  as  it  terminated  in  no  act  of  the 


179 

mission,  was  not  even  mentioned,  nor  was  the  remotest  allusion  to 
it  made  in  the  joint  letter  of  the  mission  to  the  Secretary  of  State, 
of  25th  December.  It  is  true,  that  on  the  5th  of  November,  when 
the  vote  upon  Mr.  Gallatin's  offered  article  was  taken,  the  instruc 
tions  of  19th  October  preceding,  cancelling  the  paragraph  of  the  in 
structions  of  15th  April,  1813,  cited  by  Mr.  Russell  in  his  duplicate, 
although  written  and  on  their  passage,  had  not  been  received  ;  but 
it  is  equally  true,  that  through  the  whole  discussion  preceding  the 
vote  of  5th  November,  although  every  objection  which  an  ardent, 
profound,  and  vigorous  mind  could  suggest  against  the  article  was 
adduced,  yet  no  mention  was  made  of  this  paragraph  of  the  instruc 
tions  of  15th  April,  18 13.  It  never  was  alleged  that  the  article  would 
violate  those  instructions  ;  and  if  it  had  been  alleged  the  answer 
would  have  been  obvious,  that  so  long  as  Great  Britain  retained 
a  claim  to  the  boundary  line  to  the  Mississippi,  we  could  not  as- 
smme  for  granted  that  that  river  was  within  our  exclusive  jurisdic 
tion,  nor  consequently  that  the  instructions  of  15th  April,  1813,  for 
bad  us  from  agreeing  to  a  stipulation  reserving  the  right  of  British 
subjects  to  its  navigation.  Mr.  Russell  says,  that  in  my  remarks  I 
admit,  at  least  by  implication,  that  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  in. 
struction  of  15th  April,  1813,  were  against  the  offer.  1  admit 
no  such  thing;  but  think  1  have  proved  the  contrary.  I  say  that 
never,  either  in  the  discussions  preceding  the  vote  of  5th  Novem 
ber,  1814,  or  in  those  of  28th  and  29th  November,  were  the  instruc 
tions  of  15th  April,  1813,  alleged  against  the  offer  :  nor  did  I  show 
to  Mr.  Russell  at  the  Department  of  State,  the  record  of  the  in 
structions  of  4th  and  19th  October,  to  show  that  we  were  released 
from  the  obligation  of  observing  the  instructions  of  15th  April,  1813, 
I  showed  them  to  him  to  prove,  that  in  the  variations  of  his  dupli 
cate,  fabricated  at  Washington  in  1822,  from  his  real  letter  written 
at  Paris  in  1815,  he  had  not  only  introduced  a  new  charge  of  ag 
gravated  crimination  against  his  colleagues,  contradicted  by  the 
express  words  of  his  real  letter,  but  that  he  had  cited,  in  proof  of 
this  charge,  an  instruction,  which  at  the  time  when  the  question 
was  taken,  against  which  he  now,  speaking  as  if  in  1815,  averred, 
in  contradiction  to  what  he  had  really  said  in  1815,  that  he  had 
voted,  because  he  thought  it  violated  that  instruction,  he  knew 
had  been  cancelled.  I  showed  them  to  him  to  prove,  that  what  he 
now  alleged  as  his  main  motive  for  voting  against  the  proposition, 
had  not  been  and  could  not  have  been  his  real  motive  :  that  it  was 
an  invention  of  1822,  held  forth  as  a  narrrtive  of  facts  in  1814. 

I  trust  I  have  now  shown,  beyond  the  reach  of  reply,  that  the 
same  character  belongs  to  what  he  calls  the  real  history  of  th" 
offer  made  to  the.  British  plenipotentiaries  on  the  1st  of  December, 
1814,  in  contradiction  to  the  summary  statement  of  it  which  I  had 
given  in  my  remarks  on  his  letters. 

But  at  the  close  of  Mr.  Russell's  publication  in  the  Boston 
Statesman  of  27th  June,  there  is  an  insinuation,  upon  which  I  have. 
a  word  to  say,  and  with  which  I  shall  take  leave  of  this  part  of  hi» 


180 

reply.  He  says  he  shall  have  abundant  reason  to  rejoice,  if  in  di 
recting  the  infirmities  of  my  temper  against  him,  they  shall  have 
been  diverted  from  a  course  in  which  they  might  have  been  disastrous 
to  the  country.  If  in  the  history  of  my  life,  or  in  that  of  the  coun 
try,  Mr.  Russell  could  allege  a  single  incident,  in  which  the  infir 
mities  of  my  temper  ever  have  taken  a  course  disastrous  to  the 
country,  I  should  have  felt  this  Parthian  shaft  to  be  as  deeply  tinged 
with  venom  to  me,  as  with  bitterness  from  the  heart  whence  it  sped. 
But  it  has  fallen  short  of  its  mark  ;  equally  harmless  to  me  and 
useless  to  the  professed  patriotic  self-devotion  of  the  archer. 

And  how  stands  the  account  of  Mr.  Russell  ?  At  the  negotiation 
of  Ghent,  he  had,  as  a  member  of  the  mission,  been  instructed,  in 
terms  the  most  positive  and  unqualified,  not  to  surrender  the  fish 
eries.  In  that  instruction,  no  sophistical  distinction  between  a 
right  in  the  fisheries  held  by  virtue  of  our  Independence,  and  a 
liberty  in  the  fisheries  held  by  grant  from  Great  Britain,  was  war 
ranted  or  allowed.  No  part  of  them  was  to  be  surrendered.  And 
the  instruction  was  pointed  and  precise,  to  break  off  the  negotiation 
sooner  than  surrender  them.  The  British  plenipotentiaries  had 
presented  the  demard  of  surrender  in  such  form,  that  there  were 
only  two  possible  modes  of  saving  them  ;  one,  to  agree  to  a  new- 
stipulation  recognising  them  ;  the  other,  to  maintain  that  they  had 
not  been  abrogated  by  the  war.  A  stipulation  for  a  new  recogni 
tion  is  offered.  Mr.  Russell  votes  against  it,  because,  as  he  alleges, 
it  would  deprive  the  western  country  of  an  advantage,  which  they 
would  otherwise  derive  from  the  war.  He  prefers  that  the  East 
should  /ose,  so  that  the  West  may  gain,  by  the  result  of  the  war. 
lie  rejects  the  proposal  which  would  place  both  interests  on  the 
fame  footing  as  before  the  war.  The  East  is  his  native  section  of 
the  Union.  But  it  is  a  disaffected  part  of  the  country  :  and  then — 

"  Westward  the  star  of  empire  takes  its  course." 

Well — the  other  alternative  is  presented  ;  to  maintain  that  the 
liberties  in  question  were  not  abrogated  by  the  war.  Mr.  Russell 
subscribes  to  this  :  but  he  now  says  it  was  "  in  the  spirit  of  com 
promise,  as  a  PRETEXT  to  preserve  the  fishing  privilege,  and  to  get 
rid  of"  the  other  proposition.  Subsequently,  Mr.  Russell  assents 
to  the  other  proposition  itself,  and  subscribes  his  name  to  a  letter 
declaring  that  he  had  no  objection  to  it.  But  this  100  he  now  says 
was  only  in  deference  to  the  majority,  and  for  fear  that  if  he  did 
not  subscribe,  the  enemy  would  accept  it.  The  enemy,  however, 
despise  this  equivalent,  so  extravagant  in  the  eyes  of  Mr.  Russell : 
and  no  sooner  is  it  offered  to  them  than  they  reject  it.  The  peace 
is  concluded.  The  Mississippi  navigation  is  not  conceded  to  the 
British  ;  and  the  preservation  of  the  fishing  liberties  to  this  nation, 
depends  exclusively  upon  their  maintaining  the  principle,  that 
they  had  not  been  abrogated  by  the  war.  Six  weeks  after  signing 
this  treaty,  Mr.  Russell,  still  commissioned  as  a  member  of  the 
to  negotiate  a  treaty  of  commerce  with  Great  Britain,  lia- 


181 

ble  every  hour  to  be  called  to  a  share  in  that  negotiation,  and  to 
the  duty  of  maintaining  against  British  negotiators  our  fishing  liber 
ties,  deliberately  sits  down  and  writes  to  his  government  a  long 
and  learned  diplomatic  discourse  to  prove,  that  the  fishing  liberties 
were  irretrievably  lost ;  that  there  was  not  a  shadow  of  right  to 
them  remaining  ;  that  the  principle  upon  which  he  and  his  col 
leagues  had  staked  them  at  Ghent,  was  the  dream  of  a  visionary  ; 
that  our  only  title  to  them  was  a  grant,  in  the  treaty  of  1783  ;  that 
the  treaty  of  1783  was  a  dead  letter,  and  that  the  only  possible  ex 
pedient  for  us  to  recover  them,  was  by  offering  for  them  an  equi 
valent,  "fair  in  its  comparative  value,  and  just  in  its  relative  ef 
fects  ;"  and,  as  the  profoundest  of  all  his  discoveries,  reveals  to 
them  that  this  equivalent  must  be  taken  "  wherever  it  might  be 
found." 

This  letter,  Mr.  Russell  writes,  not  in  cypher  ;  commits  it  to 
the  ocean,  before  hostilities  have  ceased  ;  and  exposes  it  in  various 
ways  to  be  intercepted  by  the  enemy.  It  reaches,  however,  its 
destination,  after  the  ratification  of  the  peace,  and  just  about  the 
time  when  British  cruisers,  stationed  on  the  fishing  grounds,  warn 
all  American  fishing  vessels  not  to  approach  within  SIXTY  miles  of 
the  shores.  Such  is  the  practical  exposition  given  by  the  British 
government  of  their  meaning  in  the  indefinite  notification  that  they 
intended  to  exclude  us  from  fishing  within  the  limits  of  British  so 
vereignty  :  and  that  exposition  was  supported  by  all  the  historical 
public  law  applicable  to  the  case,  and  by  the  most  eminent  writers 
upon  the  law  of  nations.  The  complaints  of  the  American  fisher 
men,  thus  interrupted  in  their  honest  industry,  and  interdicted 
from  the  exercise  of  it,  and  the  argument  of  Mr.  Russell  to  de 
monstrate  the  abrogation  of  the  treaty  of  1783  by  war,  and  the 
consequent  discontinuance  of  the  fishing  privilege,  (as  he  terms  it) 
must  have  been  received  about  the  same  time,  by  the  Secretary  of 
State.  If  the  argument  had  been  as  successful,  as  it  had  been  la 
boriously  wrought,  what  a  happy  answer  it  would  have  supplied 
for  Mr.  Monroe  to  the  complaints  of  the  fishermen  !  What  a  theme 
for  the  instructions  to  be  given  to  the  American  minister  at  Lon 
don,  upon  this  emergency  ! 

But  the  President  of  the  United  States  and  the  Secretary  of 
State  of  that  day,  were  no  converts  to  the  doctrine  of  Mr.  Russell ; 
nor  believers  in  the  worthlessness  of  the  fishing  liberties  The 
minister  at  London  was  instructed  to  remonstrate  against  the  inter 
ruption  of  the  fishermen,  and  to  maintain  the  rights  of  the  nation. 
A  correspondence  with  the  British  government  ensued,  in  which 
the  question  as  to  the  abrogation  of  the  treaty  of  1783  was  tho 
roughly  discussed.  The  orders  to  the  British  cruisers  were  partly 
disavowed,  and  partly  countermanded.  The  negotiation  was  con 
tinued  until  that  of  the  convention  of  1818  commenced,  and  merg 
ed  in  it  The  British  government  never  formally  renounced  their 
and  Mr.  Russell's  doctrine,  that  the  war  of  1812  had  abrogated  the 
treaty  of  1783.  As  little  did  the  government  of  the  United  States 

23 


182 

renounce  the  doctrine,  that  all  their  rights  and  liberties,  recognised 
by  the  treaty  of  1783,  were  in  full  force  as  if  the  war  of  1812  had 
never  occurred.  The  conflict  of  opinion  was  adjusted  by  a  new 
article,  as  little  liable  to  be  abrogated  by  a  future  war,  as  the  treaty 
of  Independence.  By  this  article,  we  have  expressly  renounced 
a  small  portion  of  the  liberties  within  the  exclusive  and  limited 
territorial  jurisdiction  of  part  of  the  British  provinces,  and  have 
received  in  equivalent  an  enlargement  of  those  liberties  on  the 
coast  and  shores  of  Newfoundland.  The  substance  of  the  contest 
has  been  conceded  to  us  ;  and  each  party  has  adhered  to  its  doc 
trine.  Now,  if  Mr.  Russell  had  been  charged  with  this  negotiation 
on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  as,  at  the  time  when  he  wrote 
his  letter  of  1 1th  February,  1815,  there  was  a  probability  that  he 
might  be,  what  would  have  been  his  situation,  and  how  would  this 
great  interest  of  his  country  have  stood,  if  when  first  ordered  to 
remonstrate  against  the  interruption  of  the  American  fishermen  by 
British  cruisers  in  1815,  the  British  government  had  answered 
him  by  a  copy  of  his  own  letter,  written  but  six  months  before  at 
Paris?  To  his  own  situation,  perhaps,  his  memory  may  furnish 
him  a  parallel,  from  the  feelings  with  which  on  the  29th  of  April 
last,  he  learnt  that  the  original  of  his  letter  had  been  found.  But 
lor  the  interest  of  his  country ,  what  had  his  letter  left  him  the  power 
to  say  to  the  British  government,  in  the  case  supposed  ?  For  the 
maintenance  of  the  liberties  of  his  country,  he  had  disabled  his  own 
pen,  and  sealed  his  own  lips.  He  had  come  forth  as  the  champion 
of  the  cause  of  their  adversary.  The  fisheries  on  the  banks  of 
Newfoundland,  in  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  and  on  the  coast  of 
Labrador,  would  have  been  lost  to  this  Union  ;  lost,  by  the  pre 
varications  (to  use  no  harsher  term)  of  a  NATIVE  OF  MASSACHU 
SETTS.  Is  this,  the  man  who  charges  me  with  infirmities  of 
temper,  which  might  have  taken  a  course  disastrous  to  my  country? 


II.  Right  of  the  People  of  the  United  States  to  the  Fishing  Liberties — - 
Effect  of  War  upon  Treaties,  and  Treaty  Stipulations — Peculiar 
character  of  the  Treaty  of  1783. 

When  at  the  negotiations  of  Ghent,  under  an  express  instruction 
from  the  government  of  the  United  States,  sooner  to  break  off  the 
negotiation  than  to  surrender  the  fisheries  ;  after  a  notification  from 
the  British  plenipotentiaries  that  their  government  "  did  not  intend 
"  to  grant  to  the  United  States,  gratuitously,  the  privileges  formerly 
"granted  to  them  by  treaty,  of  fishing  within  the  limits  of  the  Bri- 
^  tish  sovereignty,  and  of  using  the  shores  of  the  British  territories, 
f(  for  purposes  connected  with  the  fisheries" — I  suggested  to  my 
colleagues,  as  an  answer  to  be  given  to  that  notification,  that  all  the 
'ights  and  liberties,  in  the  fisheries,  having  been  recognised  by 


183 

Great  Britain  in  the  treaty  of  1783,  as  belonging  to  the  people  oi 
the  United  States,  none  of  them  had  been  forfeited  or  abrogated  by 
the  war;  that  we  needed  no  new  stipulation  for  their  security,  and 
that  we  should  consider  ourselves  as  much  entitled  to  them  after 
the  peace,  without  an  article  concerning  them  as  witii  one;  and 
when  my  colleagues  unanimously,  so  far  as  their  signatures  could 
pledge  their  sentiments,  united  with  me  in  asserting  that  principle; 
it  certainly  did  not  enter  into  my  dreams,  that  seven  years  after 
wards  one  of  those  same  colleagues  would  traduce  that  doctrine 
before  the  legislative  assembly  of  my  country,  as  equivalent  to  a 
crime  of  state,  and  denounce  me  in  the  face  of  the  nation,  as  a 
visionary  dreamer  for  believing  it. 

I  first  suggested  it  as  an  alternative,  for  an  article  proposed  by 
another  member  of  the  mission,  to  be  offered  for  a  new  stipulation, 
recognising  again  those  liberties,  fo.  an  equivalent  recognition,  of 
a  similar  liberty  claimed  by  the  other  party,  and  deducible  from 
the  same  principle— I  had  no  objection  to  that  article,  because  it 
offered  nothing  but  what  J  considered  as  necessarily  flowing  from 
the  principle  itself,  and  because,  if  accepted,  it  would  not  only  have 
secured  the  interest,  and  the  liberties  in  question,  but  have  pre 
cluded  all  future  controversy  with  the  adverse  party  concerning 
them.  But  as  one  member  of  the  mission  had  raised  very  earnest 
objections  against  the  article,  and  as  I  was  anxiously  desirous  of 
conciliating  the  feelings  as  well  as  of  protecting  the  interests  of 
every  part  of  the  Union,  I  was  willing  to  accept  the  assertion  of 
the  principle,  as  a  substitute  for  the  stipulation  of  the  article,  and 
to  rest  the  defence  of  the  interest  upon  the  future  firmness  and  in 
telligence  of  my  country. 

In  the  soundness  of  the  principle  itself  I  firmly  believed  and 
still  believe  : — I  had  proposed  the  assertion  of  it  before  the  vote 
upon  the  question  whether  Mr.  Gallatin's  projected  article  should 
be  offered  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries  had  been  taken. — It  was 
not  then  accepted,  but  after  the  vote  had  been  taken,  and  a  majo 
rity  of  the  mission  had  resolved  to  propose  the  article,  my  princi 
ple  was  reproduced  by  Mr.  Clay,  and  by  unanimous  consent 
was  substituted  for  the  article  which  it  had  been  determined  to 
offer. 

The  paragraph  as  it  appears  in  the  note  of  10th  November, 
1814,  from  the  American  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  signed 
by  all  the  members  of  the  American  mission,  is  as  follows  : 

"  In  answer  to  the  declaration  made  by  the  British  plenipoten- 
*  tiaries  respecting  the  fisheries,  the  undersigned,  referring  to  what 
'  passed  in  the  conference  of  the  9th  of  x\ugust,  can  only  state 
' that  they  are  not  authorized  to  bring  into  discussion  any  of  the 
'  rights  or  liberties  which  the  United  States  have  heretofore  en- 
'joyed  in  relation  thereto.  From  their  nature,  and  from  the  pe- 
'  culiar  character  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  by  which  they  were  re- 
'"  cognised,  no  further  stipulation  has  been  deemed  necessary  by 


"  the  government  of  the  United  States,  to  entitle  them  to  the  full 
"enjoyment  of  all  of  them." 

As  the  treaty  of  Ghent  was  concluded  without  any  article  relat 
ing  to  the  fisheries,  the  only  grounds  upon  which  our  rights  and 
liberties  in  them  could  be  maintained  against  Great  Britain  after 
the  peace,  were  contained  in  the  principle  asserted  by  this  para 
graph.  They  rested,  therefore,  upon  the  nature  of  the  rights  and 
liberties  of  the  people  of  this  Union,  in  and  to  those  fisheries,  and 
upon  the  peculiar  character  of  the  treaty  recognising  them.  What 
was  the  nature  of  those  rights  and  liberties  ?  And  what  was  the 
peculiar  character  of  that  treaty  ? 

The  nature  of  the  rights  and  liberties,  consisted  in  the  free  par 
ticipation  in  a  fishery.  That  fishery  covering  the  bottom  of  the 
banks  which  surround  the  island  of  Newfoundland,  the  coasts 
of  New-England,  Nova  Scotia,  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  and 
Labrador,  furnishes  the  richest  treasure  and  the  most  benefi 
cent  tribute  that  ocean  pays  to  earth  on  this  terraqueous  globe- 
By  the  pleasure  of  the  Creator  of  earth  and  seas,  it  had  been  con 
stituted  in  its  physical  nature  owe  fishery,  extending  in  the  open  seas 
around  that  island,  to  little  less  than  five  degrees  of  latitude  from 
the  coast,  spreading  along  the  whole  northern  coast  of  this  conti 
nent,  and  insinuating  itself  into  all  the  bays,  creeks,  and  harbours 
to  the  very  borders  of  the  shores.  For  the  full  enjoyment  of  an 
equal  share  in  this  fishery,  it  was  necessary  to  have  a  nearly  ge 
neral  access  to  every  part  of  it.  The  habits  of  the  game  which  it 
pursues  being  so  far  migratory  that  they  were  found  at  different 
periods  most  abundant  in  different  places,  sometimes  populating 
the  banks  and  at  others  swarming  close  upon  the  shores.  The 
latter  portion  of  the  fishery  had,  however,  always  been  considered 
as  the  most  valuable,  inasmuch  as  it  afforded  the  means  of  drying 
and  curing  the  fish  immediately  after  they  were  caught,  which 
could  not  be  effected  upon  the  banks. 

By  the  law  of  nature  this  fishery  belonged  to  the  inhabitants  of 
the  regions  in  the  neighbourhood  of  which  it  was  situated.  By  the 
conventional  law  of  Europe,  it  belonged  to  the  European  nations 
which  had  formed  settlements  in  those  regions.  France,  as  the 
first  principal  settler  in  them,  had  long  claimed  the  exclusive  right 
to  it.  Great  Britain,  moved  in  no  small  degree  by  the  value  of  the 
fishery  itself,  had  made  the  conquest  of  all  those  regions  upon 
France,  and  had  limited  by  treaty,  within  a  narrow  compass,  the, 
right  of  France  to  any  share  in  the  fishery.  Spain,  upon  some 
claim  of  prior  discovery  had  for  some  time  enjoyed  a  share  of  the 
fishery  on  the  banks  ;  but  at  the  last  treaty  of  peace,  prior  to  the 
American  revolution,  had  expressly  renounced  it. 

At  the  commencement  of  the  American  revolution,  therefore, 
this  fishery  belonged  exclusively  to  the  British  nation,  subject  to  a 
certain  limited  participation  in  it  reserved  by  treaty  stipulations 
to  France, 


185 

By  an  act  of  parliament,  passed  in  the  reign  of  Edward  the  sixth, 
(1547)  the  Newfoundland  fisher)7  had  been  declared  an  unlicensed 
fishery,  free  to  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  realm,  and  in  all  the  char 
ters  of  the  New-England  colonies,  the  rights  of  fishings,  had  been 
granted,  with  special  reservations  of  the  right  of  sharing  in  these 
fisheries  to  all  British  subjects.  The  right  "  to  use  and  exercise 
"  the  trade  of  fishing  upon  the  coast?  of  New-England,  in  any  of 
"  the  seas  thereunto  adjoining,  or  any  arms,  of  the  said  seas,  or 
"  salt  water  rivers,  where  they  have  been  wont  to  fish,"  together 
with  the  power  to  use  the  shores,  for  purposes  connected  with  the 
fisheries,  was  expressly  granted  much  at  large,  in  the  last  charter 
of  Massachusetts  Bay,  as  it  had  been  in  those  that  preceded  it. 
There  was  a  gross  mistake,  therefore,  in  the  assertion  that  the 
king  of  Great  Britain  might  have  interdicted  the  enjoyment  of  these 
fisheries  to  the  people  of  the  province  of  Massachusetts  Bay.  It 
was  their  birth-right,  as  British  subjects  ;  it  was  their  special  right 
as  secured  to  them  by  charter  ;  and  the  British  parliament  it 
self  could  deprive  them  of  it,  as  they  did,  only  by  one  of  those 
acts  which  provoked  and  justified  the  Declaration  of  Independence. 
In  March  1775,  the  British  parliament,  passed  "  an  act  to  restrain 
"  the  trade  and  commerce  of  tiie  provinces  of  Massachusetts  Bay 
"  and  New  Hampshire,  and  colonies  of  Connecticut  and  Rhode- 
c  Island,  and  Providence  Plantation,  in  North  America,  to  Great 
:  Britain,  Ireland,  and  the  British  islands  in  the  West  Indies  ;  and 
"  to  prohibit  such  provinces  and  colonies  from  carrying  on  any 
"fishery  on  the  Banks  of  Newfoundland,  and  other  places  therein 
"mentioned,  under  certain  conditions  and  limitations." 

In  moving  for  leave  to  bring  in  this  bill,  lord  North  "  supported 
"  his  motion  by  declaring,  that  as  the  Americans  had  refused  to 
'  trade  with  this  kingdom,  it  was  but  just  that  we  should  not  suffer 
'  them  to  trade  with  any  other  nation.  In  particular,  he  said  that 
'  the  fishery  on  tne  Banks  of  Newfoundland,  and  the  other  banks, 
'  and  all  the  others  in  America,  was  the  undoubted  right  of  Great 
'  Britain,  therefore  we  might  dispose  of  them  as  we  pleased.  That 
« although  the  two  houses  had  not  declared  all  Massachusetts  Bay 
"  in  rebellion,  they  had  declared,  that  there  is  a  rebellion  in  that 
"province.  It  was  just,  therefore,  to  deprive  that  province  of  its 
"fisheries."  Hansard's  Parliamentary  History,  vol.  18,  p.  299. 

In  the  debates  upon  this  bill,  all  the  abilities  and  all  the  elo 
quence  of  both  parties  in  the  British  parliament  were  called  forth. 
On  this  bill  Mr.  Charles  Fox  said,  "  that  this  bill  must  have  been 
"  calculated  to  put  an  end  to  all  that  remained  of  the  legislative 
"  authority  of  Great  Britain  over  America.  That  it  must  be  in- 
"  tended  to  show  to  the  colonies  that  there  was  no  one  branch  of 
*'  supreme  authority  which  parliament  might  not  abuse  in  such  a 
"  manner,  as  to  render  it  reasonable  to  deny,  and  necessary  to  re- 
"  sist  it."  Then  after  enumerating  all  their  previous  acts  of  oppres 
sion,  he  added,  "  but  the  British  legislature  is  now  to  convince  the 
1  Americans  that  this  power  thus  used,  may  be  made  by  fax  the 


186 

"  most  oppressive,  and  worse  than  any  of  those  they  had  hitherto 
"  denied.  He  was  quite  satisfied,  that  the  bill  was  meant  for  no- 
"  thing  else  hut  to  exasperate  the  colonies  into  open  and  direct 
"  rebellion." 

Mr.  Burke,  pursuing  the  same  idea,  and  enlarging  upon  it,  applied 
to  the  ministry,  who  brought  forward  the  bill,  the  passage  from 
Macbeth  : 

"  I  am  in  blood 

"  Stept  in  so  far,  that  should  I  wade  no  more, 
"  Returning  were  as  tedious  as  go  o'er." 

He  said  "  that  the  scheme  was  new,  and  unheard  of  in  any  civil- 
"  ized  nation  ;  to  preserve  your  authority  by  destroying  your  domi- 
"  nions.  It  was  rather  the  idea  of  hostility  between  independent 
*•  states,  where  one  not  being  able  to  conquer  another,  thinks  to  re- 
**  duce  its  strength  gradually,  by  destroying  its  trade  and  cutting  oft" 
'*  its  resources." 

On  the  passage  of  the  bill  through  the  house  of  lords,  there 
was  a  protest  against  it,  signed  by  sixteen  peers,  among  whom  are 
the  names  of  Rockingham,  Camden,  and  Fitzwiliiam.  Among  the 
reasons  of  this  protest  are  the  following  : 

"  Because  the  people  of  New  England,  besides  the  natural  claim 
"  of  mankind  to  the  gifts  of  Providence  on  their  own  coast,  are 
"  specially  entitled  to  the  fishery  by  their  charters,  which  have 
"  never  been  declared  forfeited" — 

*'  Because  we  conceive  that  the  attempt  which  has  been  made  to 
"  bribe  the  nation  into  an  acquiescence  in  this  arbitrary  act,  by 
"  holding  out  to  them  (by  evidence  at  the  bar,)  the  spoils  of  the 
"  New  England  fishery,  worth  upwards  of  three  hundred  thousand 
"  pounds  sterling  a  year,  to  be  a  scheme  full  of  weakness  and  in- 
"  decency  ;  of  indecency,  because  it  may  be  suspected  that  thede- 
"  sire  of  the  confiscation  has  created  the  guilt ;  weak,  because  it 
"  supposes  that  whatever  is  taken  from  the  colonies  is  of  course  to 
"  be  transferred  to  ourselves.  We  may  trample  on  the  rules  of 
"justice,  but  we  cannot  alter  the  nature  of  things.  We  cannot 
"  convey  to  Great  Britain  the  advantages  of  situation  which  New 
"  England  possesses  for  the  fishery." 

But  reason  and  eloquence  were  vain  :  the  bill,  styled  by  Mr. 
Burke  "  the  grand  penal  bill,  which  passed  sentence  on  the  trade 
"and  sustenance  of  America,"  was  sanctioned  by  the  then  usual 
majorities  of  both  houses  of  parliament ;  and  it  is  thus  specially 
mentioned  among  the  charges  against  George  the  third,  in  the  De"- 
claration  of  Independence  :  "  He  has  combined  with  others  to  sub- 
"  ject  us  to  a  jurisdiction  foreign  to  our  constitution,  and  unacknow~ 
"  ledged  by  our  laws  ;  giving  his  assent  to  their  acts  of  pretended 

"  legislation -for  cutting  off"  our  trade  with  all  parts  of  the 

"  world." 

Had  Mr.  Russell  been  a  member  of  the  Congress  of  1776,  with 
what  admiration  would  that  illustrious  body  have  listened  to  hisdoq  \ 


187 

fine  that  the  British  sovereign  had  an  absolute  unlimited  control 
>ver  the  commerce  and  fisheries  of  the  colonies,  and  that  he  needed 
nothing  more  than  his  maxim  of  nullum  tempus  occurrit  regi,  to  cut 
ihem  off  from  them,  whenever  and  however  he  might  think  proper. 

Had  Mr.  Russell  been  prime  minister  of  Great  Britain  in  1775, 
with  how  much  easier  and  speedier  a  process  than  by  an  act  of 
parliament,  would  he  have  cut  off  the  commerce  and  the  fisheries 
of  the  colonies.  His  doctrine  of  the  royal  prerogative,  and  his 
maxim  of  nullum  tempus  occurrit  regi,  would  have  sufficed,  with 
a.  mere  order  in  council  to  accomplish  the  work. 

This  act  of  parliament  continued  in  force  during  the  whole  war 
of  the  American  Revolution  ;  and  as  the  Declaration  of  Independ 
ence  was  subsequent  to  and  partly  founded  upon  its  enactment, 
when  the  parties  came  to  negotiate  the  treaty  of  peace,  or  rather 
the  preliminary  articles  of  November,  1782,  to  which  the  whole 
argument  applies,  their  situations  and  relative  interests,  claims,  and 
principles,  were  certainly  very  peculiar.  The  whole  fishery, 
(with  the  exception  of  the  reserved  and  limited  right  of  France,) 
was  the  exclusive  property  of  the  British  empire.  The  right  to  a 
full  participation  in  that  property,  belonged  by  the  law  of  nature  to 
the  people  of  New  England,  from  their  locality.  Their  national 
right  to  it  as  British  subjects,  had,  as  the  United  States  maintained, 
been  tyrannically  violated,  but  not  extinguished  ;  and,  as  the  other 
party  to  the  negotiation  asserted,  forfeited  by  their  rebellion,  and 
lawfully  taken  from  them  by  act  of  Parliament,  the  supreme  su 
perintending  authority  of  the  whole  empire.  It  was  one  of  the 
questions  upon  which  the  war  itself  had  hinged,  and  in  the  interval 
between  the.  Declaration  of  Independence,  and  the  negotiation  for 
peace,  it  had  been  among  the  subjects  of  the  deepest  and  most 
anxious  deliberations  of  Congress,  how  this  great  interest  should  be 
adjusted  at  the  peace.  In  the  second  volume  of  the  Secret  Jour 
nals  of  the  Confederation  Congress,  recently  published,  it  will  be 
found,  that  from  the  17th  of  February  to  the  14th  of  August,  1779, 
the  various  questions  connected  with  this  interest,  formed  the  sub 
ject  of  the  most  earnest  and  continual  debates,  and  the  numerous 
propositions  upon  which  the  yeas  and  nays  were  taken,  manifestly 
show  the  determination  with  which  they  resolved,  in  no  event 
whatever,  to  abandon  the  right  to  share  in  this  fishery  ;  and  the 
perplexities  under  which  they  laboured  in  deciding,  as  well  whether 
it  should  or  should  not  be  made  a  sine  qua  non  for  peace,  as  how 
they  should  secure  the  continuance  of  that  portion  of  the  fishery 
which,  with  the  boundary  line  which  they  ultimately  concluded  to 
accept,  would  fall  within  the  immediate  territorial  jurisdiction  of 
the  provinces  to  remain  in  British  possession. 

By  the  third  article  of  the  preliminaries  of  November,  1782,  and 
also  by  the  corresponding  article  of  the  definitive  treaty  of  1783J 
the  whole  of  the  fishing  rights  and  liberties  were  secured,  and  re 
cognised,  as  rights  and  liberties,  pre-existing,  and  not  as  temporary 
grants — the  variation  of  the  terms  in  the  article,  securing  the  right 


183 

to  fish  on  the  banks  of  Newfoundland,  in  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence, 
and  at  all  other  places  in  the  sea,  and  the  liberty  to  fish  on  the  coasts 
of  Newfoundland  and  the  other  British  provinces,  arose  only  from 
the  circumstance,  that  by  the  same  act  which  recognised  these  li 
berties,  (the  treaty  of  peace,)  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  those 
provinces,  which  had  until  then  been  the  same  with  that  of  the  other 
British  colonies,  became  to  the  United  States  n  foreign  jurisdiction. 
The  continuance  of  the  fishing  liberty  was  the  great  object  of  the 
article  ;  and  the  language  of  the  article  was  accommodated  to  the 
severance  of  the  jurisdictions,  which  was  consummated  by  the 
same  instrument.  It  was  co-instantaneous  with  the  severance  of  the 
jurisdiction  itself;  and  was  no  more  a  grant  from  Great  Britain, 
than  the  right  acknowledged  in  the  other  part  of  the  article  ;  or  than 
the  Independence  of  the  United  States,  acknowledged  in  the  first 
article.  It  was  a  continuance  of  possessions  enjoyed  before  ;  and 
at  the  same  moment,  and  by  the  same  act,  under  which  the  United 
States  acknowledged  those  coasts  and  shores  as  being  under  a  fo 
reign  jurisdiction.  Great  Britain  recognised  the  liberty  of  the  peo 
ple  of  the  United  States  to  use  them  for  purposes  connected  with 
the  fisheries. 

This  also  was  the  peculiar  character  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  in 
which  our  title  was  recognised  to  the  rights  and  liberties  in  the 
fisheries.  They  had  all  the  qualities  mentioned  by  the  authors  on 
the  laws  of  nations,  as  appropriate  to  permanent  and  irrevocable 
acknowledgments  : 

«  Who  can  doubt,"  says  Vattel,  "  that  the  pearl  fishery  of  Bah- 
"  rem  and  Ceylon,  may  not  lawfully  be  enjoyed  as  property  ?  And 
"  though  a  fishery  for  food  appears  more  inexhaustible,  if  a  nation 
"  has  a  fishery  on  its  coasts  that  is  particularly  advantageous,  and 
"  of  which  it  may  become  master,  shall  it  not  be  permitted  to  ap- 
"  propriate  this  natural  advantage  to  itself,  as  a  dependence  on  the 
"  country  it  possesses  ;  and  if  there  are  a  sufficient  number  of  fish 
"  to  furnish  the  neighbouring  nations,  of  reserving  to  itself  the  great 
"  advantage  it  may  receive  from  them  by  commerce  ?  But  if,  so 
"  far  from  taking  possession  of  it,  it  has  once  acknowledged  the  com- 
"  mon  right  of  other  nations  to  come  and  fish  there,  it  can  no  longer 
"  exclude  them  from  it ;  it  has  left  that  fishery  in  its  primitive  free- 
"  dom,  at  least  with  respect  to  those  'who  have  been  in  possession  of  it. 
"  The  English  not  having  taken  the  advantage /rom  the  beginning, 
"  of  the  herring  fishery  on  their  coast,  it  is  become  common  to  them 
"with  other  nations."  Vattel,  b.  1,  ch.  23,  §287. 

In  the  third  article  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  the  liberties  of  the  peo 
ple  of  the  United  States  in  the  fisheries  within  the  British  North 
American  colonial  jurisdiction  were,  in  the  most  rigorous  sense  of 
the  words,  acknowledged/rom  the  beginning — for  it  was  by  the  very 
same  act,  which  constituted  it,  as  to  the  United  States,  a  foreign 
jurisdiction. 


189 

That  this  was  the  understanding  of  the  article,  by  the  British  go- 
vernmont  as  well  as  by  the  American  negotiators,  is  apparent  to 
demonstration,  by  the  debates  in  Parliament  upon  the  preliminary 
article?.  It  was  made  in  both  Houses  one  of  the  great  objections 
to  the  treaty.  In  the  House  of  Commons,  lord  North,  the  man  who 
as  minister  in  1775,  had  brought  in  and  carried  through  the  act  for 
depriving  us  of  the  fishery,  but  who  had  now  become  a  leader  of  the 
opposition,  said  :  "  By  the  third  article,  we  have,  in  our  spirit  of 
"  reciprocity,  given  the  Americans  an  unlimited  right  to  take  fish 
€t  of  every  kind  on  the  Great  Bank,  and  on  all  the  other  Banks  of 
14  Newfoundland.  But  this  was  not  sufficient  We  have  also  given 
44  them  the  right  of  fishing  in  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  and  at  all 
44  other  places  in  the  sea  where  they  have  heretofone  enjoyed, 
44  through  us,  the  privilege  of  fishing,  They  have  likewise  the 
44  power  of  even  partaking  of  the  fishery  which  we  still  retain. 
44  We  have  not  been  content  with  resigning  what  we  possessed,  but 
"  even  share  what  we  have  left.  The  United  States  have  liberty 
l'  to  fish  on  that  part  of  the  coast  of  Newfoundland  which  British 
"  fishermen  shall  use.  All  the  reserve  is,  that  they  are  not  to  dry 
-'  or  cure  the  same  on  the  island,  By  this  grant  they  are  at  liberty 
4i  to  take  our  property,  for  which  we  have  so  long  kept  possession 
44  of  the  island.  This  is  certainly  a  striking  instance  of  that  liberal 
41  equity  which  we  find  is  the  basis  of  the  provisional  treaty  !  But 
44  where  shall  I  find  an  instance  of  that  reciprocity  which  is  also  set 
"  forth  in  the  preamble  ?  We  have  given  the  Americans  the  unli- 
"  mited  privilege  of  fishing  on  all  the  coasts,  bays,  and  creeks,  of 
•4  our  American  dominions.  But  where  have  they,  under  this 
44  principle  of  reciprocity,  given  us  the  privilege  of  fishing  on  any 
*'  of  their  coasts,  bays,  or  creeks  1  I  could  wish  such  an  article 
"  could  be  found,  were  it  only  to  give  a  colour  to  this  boasted  reci- 
"  procity.  The  advantage  we  should  derive  from  such  an  article, 
44  cannot  be  a  consideration  ;  for  every  real  and  positive  advantage 
"  to  Great  Britain  seems  to  have  been  entirely  foreign  to  the  intent 
44  and  meaning  of  this  peace,  in  every  particular;  otherwise  I 
"  should  have  thought  it  would  have  been  the  care  of  administra- 
"  tion  not  to  have  given  without  the  least  equivalent,  that  permis- 
ci  sion  which  they  could  never  demand  as  British  subjects.  I  am 
(i  at  a  loss  to  consider  how  we  could  grant,  or  they  could  claim  it, 
*;  as  -i  right,  when  they  assumed  an  independency  which  has  sepa- 
44  rated  them  from  our  sovereignty." 

In  this  speech,  the  whole  article  is  considered  as  an  improvident 
concession  of  British  property  ;  nor  is  there  suggested  the  slight 
est  distinction  in  the  nature  of  the  grant  between  the  right  of  fishing 
©n  the  banks,  and  the  liberty  of  the  fishery  on  the  coasts. 

Still  more  explicit  are  the  words  of  lord  Loughborough,  in  the 
House  of  Peers  :  "  The  fishery,"  says  he,  44  on  the  shores  retained 
**  by  Britain,  is  in  the  next  article,  not  ceded,  but  recognised  as  a 
il  right  inherent  in  the  Americans,  which  though  no  longer  British 
*'  subjects,  they  are  to  continue,  to  enjoy  unmolesttdt  no  right  on  the 


190 

**  other  hand  being  reserved  to  British  subjects  to  approach  their 
"  shores,  for  the  purpose  of  fishing,  in  this  reciprocal  treaty." 

In  the  replies  of  the  ministerial  members  to  these  objections, 
there  is  not  a  word  attempting  to  contradict  them,  or  hinting  at  a 
distinction  in  the  tenure  of  the  title  between  the  right  and  the  li 
berty. 

Such  was  the  nature  of  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  people  of 
the  United  States  in  the  fisheries,  and  such  the  peculiar  character 
of  the  treaty  of  1783,  by  which  they  had  been  recognised.  The 
principle  asserted  by  the  American  plenipotentiaries  at  Ghent  ;  dis 
avowed  and  combated  by  Mr.  Russell,  in  his  letter  of  llth  Febru 
ary,  1815,  and  now  treated  by  him  as  the  dream  of  a  visionary, 
was,  that  tftese  right?  and  liberties,  thus  recognised,  could  not  be 
forfeited  by  a  war,  and  that  no  new  stipulation  was  necessary  to 
secure  them.  The  whole  fishery,  as  well  without  as  within  the 
special  territorial  jurisdiction,  had  been  the  common  property  of 
the  British  empire  :  so  had  been  the  whole  territory  to  which  it 
had  been  incidental.  By  the  treaty  of  separation,  the  territory 
was  divided,  and  two  separate  sovereign  jurisdictions  arose.  The 
fishery  bordered  upon  both.  The  jurisdictions  were  marked  out 
by  the  boundary  line  agreed  upon  by  the  second  article  of  the 
treaty.  The  fishery  was  disposed  of  in  the  third  article.  As  com 
mon  property,  it  was  still  to  be  held  in  common.  As  a  possession, 
it  was  to  be  held  by  the  people  of  the  United  States,  as  it  had  beea 
field  before.  It  was  not  like  the  lands  partitioned  out  by  the  same 
treaty,  a  corporeal  possession,  but  in  the  technical  language  of  the 
English  law,  an  incorporeal  hereditament,  and  in  that  of  the  civil 
Jaw,  a  right  of  mere  faculty,  consisting  in  the  power  and  liberty  of 
exercising  a  trade,  the  places  in  which  it  is  exercised  being  occu 
pied  only  for  the  purposes  of  the  trade.  Now  the  right  or  liberty 
to  enjoy  this  possession,  or  to  exercise  this  trade,  could  no  more  be 
affected  or  impaired  by  a  declaration  of  war,  than  the  right  to  the 
territory  of  the  nation.  The  interruption  to  the  exercise  of  it  dur 
ing  the  war,  could  no  more  affect  the  right  or  liberty,  than  the  oc 
cupation  by  the  enemy  of  territory  could  affect  the  right  to  that. 
The  right  to  territory  could  be  lost  only  by  abandonment  or  renun 
ciation  in  the  treaty  of  peace  ;  by  agreement  to  a  new  boundary 
line,  or  by  acquiescence  in  the  occupation*  of  the  territory  by  the 
enemy.  The  fishery  liberties  could  be  lost,  only  by  express  re 
nunciatioa  of  them  in  the  treaty,  or  by  acquiescence  in  the  princi 
ple  that  they  were  forfeited^  which  would  have  been  a  tacit  renun 
ciation. 

I  hope  it  will  not  be  deemed  an  assertion  of  infallibility,  when  I 
say,  that  I  present  this  argument  to  my  country,  both  as  to  the  na 
ture  of  our  rights  and  liberties  in  the  fisheries,  and'  as  to  the  pecu 
liar  character  of  the  treaty  by  which  they  were  recognised,  with  a 
perfect  conviction  that  it  cannot  be  answered.  But  if  I  am  mistaken 
in  that,  sure  I  am,  that  it  never  has  been  answered,  either  by  the 
British  government  or  by  Mr.  Russell, 


191 

If  admitted,  it  leaves  the  question,  whether  the  treaty  of  1783 
was  or  was  not  abrogated  by  the  late  war  ?  a  mere  question  of  use 
less  speculation,  or  of  national  pride.     That  British  statesmen  and 
jurists  should  manifest  some  impatience,  and  seize  upon  any  pretext 
to  cause  that  treaty  to  disappear  from  the  archives  of  their  national 
muniments,  is  not  at  all  surprising.     That  an  American  statesman 
should  partake  of  the  same  anxiety,  is   not  so  natural,  though  it 
may  be  traced  to  the  same  system  of  public  law,  by  which  the  com 
merce  and  fisheries  of  the  colonies,  before  the  Revolution,  were 
supposed  to  be  held  at  the    mere   pleasure  of  the  British  crown. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  deny  that  the  treaty  of  1783  was,  as  a  national 
compact,  abrogated  by  the  late   war,  so  long  as  with  the  assertion 
of  its  being  so  abrogated,  is  not  coupled  the  assertion  that  any  one 
right  or  liberty,  acknowledged  in  it  as  belonging  to  the  people  of 
the  United  States,  was  abrogated  with  it.      But  when  the  British 
government  or  Mr.  Russell  assert  that  all  the  other  rights  and  li 
berties  acknowledged  and  secured  to  the   United  States  by  that 
treaty,  survived  its  abrogation,  except  one  portion  of  the  properly 
in  the  fisheries,  stipulated  in  one  half  of  one  article,  I  say  there  i* 
nothing  either  in  the  nature  of  the  liberty  contested,  or  in  the  arti 
cle  by  which  it  is  recognised,  that  will  warrant  their  distinction  ; 
that  the  whole  treaty  was  one  compact  of  irrevocable  ackno*'iedg- 
ments,  consummated  by  the  ratification  ;  and  that  the  thin*  article 
ia  particular,  adjusted  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  partis  in  and 
to  one  common  property,  of  which  neither  party  could  ever  after 
wards  divest  the  other  without  his  consent. 

When,  therefore,  the  British  government  and  Mr-  ftussell  assert, 
that  war  abrogates  all  treaties,  and  every  article  of  every  treaty, 
they  have  yet  proved  nothing  for  their  argument  5  they  must  pro 
ceed  to  affirm,  that  with  the  abrogation  of  th<>  treaty  by  war,  all  the 
rights  and  liberties  recognised  in  the  treatf  as  belonging  to  either 
party,  are  likewise  abrogated.  And  he^»n  lies  the  fallacy  of  their 
argument.  We  ask  them,  was  the  acknowledgment  of  the  Inde 
pendence  of  the  United  States,  in  tie  first  article  of  the  treaty  of 
1783,  abrogated  by  the  war  of  18^  ?  Yes,  says  Mr.  Russell,  but 
the  Independence  of  the  United  States  rested  upon  their  own  de 
claration,  and  not  upon  the  acknowledgment  of  Great  Britain.  With 
regard  to  all  other  nation^,  undoubtedly  our  Independence  rests 
upon  our  own  Declaration,  for  they  never  contested  it.  But  Great 
Britain  had  waged  a  war  of  seven  years  against  it,  and  it  was  by  vir 
tue  of  that  article  of  the  treaty  alone,  that  she  was  bound  to  acknow 
ledge  our  Independence.  And  this  constituted  one  of  the  peculiar 
ities  of  the  treaty  of  1723.  Our  treaty  with  France,  of  1 778,  con 
tained  no  article  stipulating  the  acknowledgment  of  our  Independ 
ence.  No  such  article  was  necessary  with  any  nation  which  never 
had  contested  it.  But  with  Great  Britain,  it  was  the  whole  object 
of  that  treaty.  All  the  other  articles  were  merely  arrangements  ot 
detail  and  adjustments  of  consequences  flowing  from  the  recognition 
«f  the  first  article.  If  the  acknowledgment  of  our  Independence,, 


192 

in  the  first  article  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  was  abrogated  by  the  WAV 
of  1812,  from  the  first  hour  of  its  declaration  by  Congress,  Great 
Britain  might  have  treated  us  as  rebels t  as  she  had  done  through  the 
whole  war  of  the  Revolution. 

Was  the  boundary  line  of  the  treat}?-  of  1783  abrogated  by  the 
war  of  1812  ?  The  American  plenipotentiaries  certainly  did  not 
so  consider  it,  when  they  spoke  of  it  in  one  of  their  notes,  as  the 
line  "  as  it  now  is."  Nor  did  the  British  plenipotentiaries  so  consi 
der  it,  when  they  demanded  the  express  stipulation  of  another  line, 
by  the  treaty  then  to  be  concluded.  They  claimed  it,  not  because 
the  boundary  of  the  treaty  of  1783  was  abrogated,  but  by  the  right 
of  conquest,  as  a  cession  of  our  territory  ;  and  the  demand  was 
resisted  on  that  ground.  The  articles  in  the  treaty  of  Ghent, 
which  refer  to  the  boundary  line,  do  not  renew  or  confirm  the  arti 
cles  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  which  they  recite.  They  refer  to 
them,  as  reference  is  always  made  to  treaties  in  full  force,  and 
merely  add  new  stipulations  for  ascertaining  the  line  described  by 
them,  according  to  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  that  treaty. 

If,  then,  none  of  the  rights,  liberties,  or  possessions,  recognised 
b>  the  first  and  second  articles  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  as  belonging 
to  tte  United  States,  were  abrogated  by  the  war  of  1812,  by  what 
right,  and  upon  what  principle,  could  Mr.  Russell  consider  the 
fishing  '^berty,  recognised  as  belonging  to  them  by  the  third  article, 
to  be  entirely  at  an  end,  -without  a  new  stipulation  for  its  revival, 
The  wholt.  of  the  third  article,  concerning  the  fisheries,  was  as 
much  a  recognition  of  pre-existing  rights,  liberties,  and  posses 
sions,  as  the  fii^t  and  second  articles.  With  regard  to  that  identi 
cal  portion  of  th%  article,  which  Mr.  Russell  considers  entirely  at 
an  end,  the  words  of  ior(j  Loughborough,  which  I  have  cited,  prove 
that  it  was  universal!  j  considered,  at  the  time  when  the  treaty  of 
1783  was  made,  as  a  recognition  of  existing  rights,  as  much  as  all 
the  rest.  Mr.  Russell  say:  that  the  fishing  liberty,  within  exclusive 
British  jurisdiction,  was  unnecessary  to  perfect  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  United  States.  What  thei.?  It  was  not  a  perfection  of  juris 
dictions,  but  a  division  of  common  property.  The  whole  fishery 
had  been  the  joint  property  of  boti.  parties!  When  the  separation 
was  to  be  consummated,  it  was  agrted  that  that  property  should 
still  be  held  in  common  ;  that  the  people  of  the  United  States 
should  continue  to  enjoy  the  right  of  exercising  the  faculty  upon 
the  banks  and  open  seas,  and  should  have  the  liberty  of  exercising 
it  in  the  unsettled  bays,  creeks,  and  harbours,  where  thev  had  be^ 
fore  exercised  it  as  British  subjects,  but  which  were  thenceforth  to 
be  within  a  foreign  jurisdiction.  There  is  nothing  in  the  import  of 
the  term  liberty,  nothing  in  the  limitations  expressed  in  the  articlej 
nothing  in  the  principles  of  English  law,  or  of  the  laws  of  nations 
applicable  to  fisheries,  which  can  warrant  the  pretension  that  this, 
more  than  the  rest  of  the  article,  or  than  any  other  article  in  the 
treaty,  was  a  grant  of  privilege,  revocable  at  the  pleasure  of  Great 
Britain,  or  forfeitable  by  war.  Mr0  Russell,  in  his  letter,  frequent 


193 

ly -substitutes  the  term  privilege.,  for  that  of  liberty ,  which  is  th« 
word  used  in  the  article,  and  the  substitution  is  itself  an  indication 
of  weakness  in  his  argument.  An  eminent  English  writer  mark* 
the  distinction  between  the  meaning  of  these  words,  in  the  follow 
ing  manner : 

"  Liberty,  in  the  general  sense,  is  an   unaliennble  right,  which 

"  belongs  to  man   as  a  rational  and  responsible   agent  :  it  is  not  a 

u  claim,  for  it  is  set  above  all  question  and  all  condition  ;  nor  is  :' 

"  a  privilege,  for  it  cannot  be  exclusively  granted  to  one  being,  noi 

'  unconditionally  be  taken  away  from  another." 

Crabb's  English  Synonymcs — word  RIGHT. 

Such  is  the  purport  of  the  word  liberty,  in  its  general  sense  j 
and  by  the  application  of  it  in  the  third  article  of  the  treaty  to  the 
power  which  the  Americans  were  to  enjoy  within  the  British  juris 
diction,  to  carry  on  the  fishery,  it  is  not  to  be  presumed  that  the 
negotiators  of  the  treaty  mistook  the  word,  or  that  they  used  it  as 
in  any  manner  synonymous  with  a  privilege. 

Were  it  then  true,  as  Mr.  Russell  asserts,  that  war  dissolves  all 
treaties,  without  exception,  and  that  the  treaty  of  1783  was  totally 
dissolved  by  the  war  of  1812,  it  would  not  follow  that  the  fishing 
liberty  within  British  jurisdiction,  stipulated  by  the  third  article  of 
the  treaty,  was  abrogated  with  it.  As  a  liberty  existing  before  the 
war,  the  right  to  it  could  not  be  forfeited  by  war.  The  suspension 
of  its  exercise  during  the  war,  could  no  more  affect  the  right,  than, 
the  occupation  of  territory  by  the  enemy  could  affect  the  right  to 
that. 

But  the  doctrine  itself,  that  war  dissolves  all  treaties,  and  every 
article  of  ever}r  treaty,  without  exception,  is  not  correct.  It  has 
been  very  solemnly  disclaimed  by  the  United  States,  in  the  following 
terms  of  the  IMth  article  of  their  first  treaty  with  Prussia  : 

"  And  it  is  declared,  that  neither  THE  PRETENCE  that  war  dis- 
*'  solves  all  treaties,  nor  any  other,  whatever,  shall  be  considered 
"  as  annulling  or  suspending  this  and  the  next  preceding  article  ; 
"  but  on  the  contrary,  that  the  state  of  war,  is  precisely  that  for 
•'  which  they  are  provided  ;  and  during  which  they  are  to  be  as 
**  sacredly  observed  as  the  most  acknowledged  articles  in  the  law 
"  of  nature  or  nations." 

Of  this  treaty,  Dr.  Franklin  and  Mr.  Jefferson  were  two  of  the 
negotiators  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  and  Frederick  the  se 
cond  was  the  sovereign  with  whom  it  was  negotiated.  It  not  only 
contradicts  the  doctrine  that  war  dissolves  all  treaties,  without  ex 
ception,  but  fixes  a  stigma  upon  it  as  a  pretence  usually  resorted  to 
for  the  purpose  of  disguising  or  of  palliating  a  violation  of  good 
faith. 

The  pretence  that  war  dissolves  all  treaties,  is  itself  a  remnant  of 
that  doctrine  of  the  barbarous  ages,  that  faith  is  not  to  be  kept  with 
enemies,  and  that  no  compact  made  in  war  is  obligatory.  The  mo~ 
.dern  writers  upon  the  laws  of  nations,  have  exploded  this  opinion. 


10 1 

and  expressly  laid  it  down,  that  all  articles  of  a  treaty  made  during 
war,  or  having  in  contemplation  the  state  of  war,  as  that  in  which 
they  are  to  take  effect,  remain  in  full  force,  and  are  not  abrogated 
by  war.  This,  therefore,  constitutes  a  large  class  of  articles  of 
treaties  which  are  not  abrogated  by  war.  Another  class  of  arti 
cles,  equally  privileged  from  such  abrogation,  are  all  executed  stipu 
lations — Cessions  of  territory,  demarcations  of  boundary,  acknow 
ledgments  of  pre-existing  rightsand  liberties,  belong  to  this  class — 
and  in  it  are  included  the  first,  second,  and  third  articles  of  the 
treaty  of  1783. 

All  articles  which  have  been  executed,  may  indeed  be  said  to  be 
abrogated  by  the  execution  itself.  The  transaction  between  the 
parties  is  consummated.  In  the  case  of  a  cession  of  territory,  when 
the  possession  of  it  has  been  delivered,  the  article  of  the  treaty  ia 
no  longer  a  compact  between  the  parties,  nor  can  a  subsequent  war 
between  them  operate  in  any  manner  upon  it. 

So  of  all  articles  the  purport  of  which  is  the  acknowledgment  by 
one  party  of  a  pre-existing  right  belonging  to  another.  The  en 
gagement  of  the  acknowledging  party  is  consummated  by  the  ratifi 
cation  of  the  treaty.  It  is  no  longer  an  executory  contract ;  but  a 
perfect  right  united  with  a  vested  possession,  is  thenceforth  in  one 
party,  and  the  acknowledgment  of  the  other  is  in  its  own  nature  irre 
vocable.  As  a  bargain,  the  article  is  extinct ;  but  the  right  of  thi» 
party  in  whose  favour  it  was  made,  is  complete,  and  cannot  be  af 
fected  by  a  subsequent  war. 

A  grant  of  a  facultative  right,  or  incorporeal  hereditament,  and 
specifically  of  a  right  of  fishery,  from  one  sovereign  to  another,  is 
an  article  of  the  same  description.  It  is  analogous  to  a  cession  of 
territory,  and  is  in  fact  a  partial  and  qualified  cession.  The  right 
is  consummated  by  the  ratification  of  the  treaty.  The  possession 
is  vested  by  the  exercise  of  the  faculty.  Mere  war  between  the 
parties,  can  neither  impair  the  right  of  one  party  nor  effect  the  re- 
Tocation  of  the  grant  by  the  other. 

So  that  whether  the  third  article  of  the  treaty  of  1783  be  consi 
dered  as  an  acknowledgment  of  pre-existing  liberties,  or  as  a  grant 
of  them,  to  be  exercised  within  British  jurisdiction,  it  was  in  its 
nature  permanent  and  irrevocable,  liable,  under,  no  circumstances 
whatever,  to  be  annulled  by  the  wifl  of  Great  Britain,  and  capable 
of  being  lost  to  the  United  States  in  no  other  manner  than  by  their 
own  express  renunciation  or  tacit  abandonment. 

I  have  already  cited  a  passage  from  Vattel,  to  show,  that  when  a 
nation  has  once  acknowledged  the  right  of  other  nations  to  share  in 
a  fishery  within  its  territorial  jurisdiction,  it  can  never  afterwards 
exclude  them  from  it  without  their  consent.  What  says  he  of  grants 
by  treaty  ? 

"  Treaties,  which  do  not  relate  to  objects  of  reiterated  occur- 
<{  rence,  but  to  transitory,  single  acts,  immediately  consummated, 
"  conventions,  compacts,  which  are  accomplished  once  for  all,  and 
"  not,  by  successive  acts,  as  soon  as  they  have  received  their  exe- 


195 

**  cution,  are  things  consummated  and  finished.  If  they  are  valid, 
**  they  have  in  their  nature  an  effect  perpetual  and  irrevocable. — 
"  In  like  manner,  as  soon  as  a  right  is  transferred  by  a  lawful  con- 
<;  vention,  it  no  longer  belongs  to  the  state  which  has  ceded  it  :  the 
"  affair  is  finished  and  concluded."  Vattel,b.  2,  -c/j.  12,  §  192. 

"  But  we  must  not  here  confound  treaties  or  alliances,  which, 
"  bearing  the  obligation  of  reciprocal  engagement?,  can  subsist  only 
"  by  the  continued  existence  of  the  contracting  powers,  with  those" 
"  contracts  which  give  an  acquired  and  consummate  right  in.lepend- 
i{  ent  of  all  mutual  engagement.  If,  for  example,  a  nation  had 
"ceded  in  perpetuity  to  a  neighbouring  prince,  the  right  of  fishery 
"  in  a  river,  or  that  of  keeping  a  garrison  in  a  fortress,  Ibis  prince, 
*'•  would  not  lose  his  rights,  even  if  the  nation  from  which  he  re- 
"  ceived  them,  should  afterwards  be  conquered  or  pass  in  any  other 
%t  manner  under  a  foreign  dominion  His  rights  depend  not  on  the 
*4  continued  existence  of  that  nation :  they  had  been  alienated 
"  by  it,  and  the  conqueror  could  take  only  that  which  belonged  to 
"  itself."  Felice — Commentary  on  Burlamaqui,  Part  4,  ch.  9,  §  161. 
I  trust  I  have  now  sufficiently  shown,  either  that  the  treaty  of 
1783  was  of  that  class  of  treaties  which  are  not  abrogated  by  a 
subsequent  war,  between  the  parties  to  it,  or  that  if  it  was  so  ab 
rogated,  not  one  particle  of  the  rights  or  liberties,  stipulated  or  re 
cognised  in  it,  as  belonging  to  the  United  States,  was  or  could  be 
abrogated  with  it,  and  consequently — that  the  conclusion  of  Mr, 
Russell's  elaborate  argument,  that  the  fishing  liberty  secured  to 
the  United  States,  by  the  third  article,  was  entirely  at  an  end,  with' 
out  a  new  stipulation  for  its  revival,  was  as  unwarranted  by  any 
principle  of  the  laws  of  nations,  as  it  was  pernicious  to  the  liber 
ties  of  his  country.  Equally  groundless  and  untenable,  is  the  opi 
nion  that  by  offering  the  stipulation  in  another  treaty,  the  peculia 
rity  of  its  character  would  be  lost.  The  peculiarity  consisted  as 
well  in  the  nature  of  the  liberty,  as  in  the  character  of  the  treaty 
by  which  it  was  secured,  as  was  expressly  asserted  by  the  Ameri 
can  plenipotentiaries  ;  and  the  same  principles  would  have  applied 
to  a  new  stipulation  then,  and  do  apply  to  the  new  stipulation  since 
made,  as  did  apply  to  the  third  article  of  the  treaty  of  1783. 
When  Mr.  Russell  says  that  I  appeal  to  a  class  of  treaties  which 
are  not  known  to  exist,  he  only  proves  that  it  would  be  well  for 
him  to  revise  his  studies  of  diplomatic  and  international  law. 

The  doctrine  that  all  treaties  and  all  rights,  acknowledged  by 
articles  of  treaties,  are  dissolved  by  war,  has  not  always  been  held 
to  be  sound  even  by  the  British  government.  In  the  debates  in 
parliament  on  the  peace  of  Amiens,  lord  Auckland  said — 

"  He  had  looked  into  the  works  of  all  the  first  publicists  on  these 
•''subjects,  and  had  corrected  himself  in  a  mistake,  still  prevalent 
"  in  the  minds  of  many,  who  state,  in  an  unqualified  sense,  that  all 
*'  treaties  between  nations  are  annulled  by  war,  and  must  be  spe- 
"  '•tally  renewed  if  meant  to  be  in  force  on  the  return  of  peace.  It 


J.96 

f<  is  true,  that  treaties  in  the  nature  of  compacts  or  concession1?, 
"  the  enjoyment  of  which  has  been  interrupted  by  the  war,  and 
"  has  not  been  renewed  at  the  pacification,  are  rendered  null  by 
"  the  war.  But  compacts  not  interrupted  by  the  course  and  effect 
"  of  hostilities,  such  as  the  regulated  exercise  of  a  fishery  on  the  re- 
««  spective  coasts  of  the  belligerent  powers,  the  stipulated  right  of  cut- 
c<  ting  wood  in  a  particular  district,  or  possessing  rights  of  territorij 
"  heretofore  ceded  by  treaty,  are  certainly  not  destroyed  or  injured  by 


And  again  :  "  It  is  not  true  that  our  non-renewal  of  the  Dutch 
4t  treaties  will  liberate  the  ships  and  vessels  of  that  republic  from 
**  the  ancient  practice  of  striking  their  flag  to  British  ships  of  war, 
^  in  the  British  seas.  That  practice  did  not  depend  on  the  treaty 

'of  1784,  nor  even  on  the  treaty  of  Breda,  in  1667.  Those  trea- 
*'  tics  were  only  recognitions  of  an  existing  right.  And  the  treaty  ot 
•'  1667  expressly  stated  that  the  Dutch  flag  shall  be  struck  in  such 
l'  manner  as  the  same  hath  been  formerly  observed  in  any  time 
"whatsoever.  The  same  remark  would  be  found  applicable  to  the 
"sixth  article  of  the  treaty  of  1784,  by  which  the  States  General 

k  promised  not  to  obstruct  the  navigation  of  the  British  subjects  in 
*'  the  eastern  seas.  That  article  was  no  compact  or  grant  ;  it  was 
f'  only  an  acknowledgment  of  a  pre-existing  and  undoubted  right  ; 
"'  and  was  merely  meant  as  a  notice  to  our  merchants  that  they 
"  would  not  be  disturbed  in  the  exercise  of  that  right." 

Lastly:  "  He  had  already  stated  the  incontrovertible  principle, 
*•'  that  treaties  or  compacts,  the  exercise  of  which  is  not  interrupt- 
"  ed  by  the  course  of  the  war.  remain  in  full  effect  on  the  return 
"  of  peace.  Our  privileges  in  the  Buy  of  Honduras  had  been  given 
"  in  lieu  of  ancient  and  acknowledged  rights  in  the  Bay  of  Cam- 
•;  peachy.  Those  privileges  having  been  enjoyed  without  disturb- 

'  ance  during  the  war,  are  confirmed  and  established. 

The  earl  of  Carnarvon  —  a  member  of  the  opposition,  said  in  the 
same  debate  : 

"  It  has  been  nearly  admitted  by  ministers,  that  former  treaties, 
"  by  the  omission  of  renewal,  are  abrogated  :  my  noble  relation 
"(lord  Grenville)  does  not  go  that  length,  but  he  thinks  we  have 
"  lost  our  title  deeds  in  most  cases,  and  has  affirmed,  that  we  have 
"thereby  totally  lost  the  gum  trade.  I  am  far  from  thinking  any 
"  of  these  consequences  follow  simply  from  the  tacit  omission  of 
"  the  renewals.  War  does  not  abrogate  any  right,  or  interfere 
"  with  the  right,  though  it  does  with  the  exercise,  but  such  as  it 
"  professes  to  litigate  by  war.  All  the  writers  on  the  law  of  nations 
"  distinctly  affirm,  that  peace  has  only  relation  to  the  war  which  it 
"  terminates,  leaving  all  the  former  relative  situations  of  the  two 
**  countries  as  before  the  war;  and  that  former  treaties,  though  not 
"  expressly  renewed,  remain  in  full  effect,  if  not  expressly  abro- 
"  gated  in  the  treaty  of  peace,  or  by  private  consent  and  acknow 
ledgment." 


197 

*  The  lord  chancellor  (Eldon)  said  that  if  by  the  omission  of  the 
«  mention  of  former  treaties  they  were  all  to  be  considered  as  ab- 
"  rogated,  and  if  the  public  law  of  Europe  was  thus  altered,  he 
"  had  no  difficulty  in  saying  that  an  address  should  be  voted  to  his 
"majesty  praying  that  he  would  dismiss  his  present  ministers  from 
"  his  councils  forever.  But  he  trusted  that  the  fact  was  far  other- 
"  wise,  and  that  the  conduct  of  ministers  deserved  no  such  cen- 
"  sure." 

And  afterwards  with  regard  to  the  right  of  cutting  logwood  in 
the  Bay  of  Honduras  : 

"  Let  it  be  held  in  mind,  that  Honduras  became  the  rightful  pro- 
"  perty  of  Great  Britain  by  conquest,  and  was  never  ceded  to 
•*  Spain,  without  an  acknowledgment ,  on  the  part  of  the  court  of 
"  Madrid,  of  our  undoubted  right  to  cut  logwood.  In  proportion. 
"  as  the  right  of  conquest  was  paramount  to  the  effect  of  treaties, 
"  in  which  that  right  was  not  specifically  abandoned  and  resigned, 
ts  our  right  to  cut  logwood  in  the  Bay  of  Honduras  remained  more 
"  secure  and  free  from  challenge  than  it  could  have  done  if  it  had 
"  been  mentioned  in  the  definitive  treaty." 

And  in  the  debate  in  the  House  of  Commons,  speaking  of  this 
same  right  of  cutting  logwood  in  the  Bay  of  Honduras,  lord  Hawkes- 
bury  (the  present  earl  of  Liverpool)  said, 

"  The  fact  is,  that  right  was  ceded  to  us  by  the  Spaniards  in 
"  1787,  in  return  for  some  lands  that  we  gave  them  on  the  Mus- 
"  quito  Shore  ;  therefore  it  is  a  settlement  which  we  possess  of 
"  right,  and  to  which  the  Spaniards  were  as  much  bound  to  refer 
"  in  the  treaty  as  we  were  ;  it  was,  in  truth,  on  our  part  no  ornis- 
"  sion."  Hansard's  Parliamentary  History,  vol.  36,  A.  D.  1802. 

The  doctrine  of  the  non-abrogation  even  of  commercial  treaties,  by 
war,  has  been  maintained  by  British  statesmen  and  lawyers  on 
many  occasions.  They  have  sometimes  carried  it  further  than 
those  of  other  nations  have  been  ready  to  admit.  Thus  in  the  de 
bate  of  the  House  of  Commons  on  the  definitive  treaty  of  peace  of 
1783,  between  France,  Spain,  and  Great  Britain,  Mr.  Fox,  al 
luding  to  the  renewal  in  that  treaty  of  the  treaty  of  Utrecht ;  and 
to  the  period  of  two  years  from  the  1st  of  January,  1784,  fixed  for 
the  negotiation  of  a  treaty  of  commerce,  said  :  "  Pending  the  nego- 
"  tiation,  it  was  reasonable  to  suppose  the  three  nations  would,  in 
"commercial  transactions,  be  bound  by  the  treaty  of  Utrecht :  and 
"  this  he  imagined  was  the  sense  of  the  British  ministers.  But  sup 
posing  the  two  years  should  expire  before  the  new  commercial 
"  arrangements  should  take  place,  a  question  would  naturally  arise, 
"  what  would,  in  this  case,  become  of  the  treaty  of  Utrecht  ?  For 
"  his  part,  he  was  of  opinion  that  the  treaty  of  Utrecht  would,  in  such 
"  a  case,  still  remain  in  full  force  ;  but  he  knew,  on  the  other  hand, 
"  that  this  had  not  been  the  opinion  of  the  courts  of  Madrid  and 
"  Versailles,  the  ministers  of  which  contended,  that  if  the  negotia- 
"  tions  should  end  without  producing  any  new  commercial  arrange- 


198 

"'fluents,  the  treaty  of  Utrecht  would,  in  that  case,  be  compietel}' 
"  annulled."     Hansard's  Parliamentary  History,  vol.  23,  p.  1147. 

In  the  year  1686,  a  treaty  was  concluded  between  Louis  the  14th 
and  James  the  second,  regulating  the  commercial  intercourse  be 
tween  the  respective  subjects  and  possessions  of  France  and  Great 
Britain  in  America.  It  was  known  by  the  denomination  of  the 
Treaty  of  Neutrality.  Two  years  after  its  conclusion,  occurred  the 
revolution  by  which  James  was  expelled  from  the  British  throne, 
and  a  war  between  the  two  nations,  which  terminated  in  1695,  by 
the  peace  of  Ryswick.  At  the  commencement  of  the  next  cen 
tury,  broke  out  the  war  of  the  Spanish  succession,  which,  after 
raging  twelve  years,  closed  in  1714,  by  the  treaty  of  Utrecht.  The 
treaty  of  neutrality  had  not  been  specifically  renewed  or  named , 
either  by  the  treaty  of  Ryswick  or  by  that  of  Utrecht :  yet  on  the 
3d  of  June,  1728,  the  attorney  and  solicitor  general,  Yorke  and 
Talbot,  gave  their  official  opinion  that  the  treaty  of  neutrality  was 
Still  in  force,  and  instructions,  founded  upon  its  validity,  were  given 
to  the  governors  of  the  British  colonies  in  America. 

In  1741,  commenced  the  war  of  the  Pragmatic  Sanction,  or  for  the 
Austrian  succession,  which  finished  in  1748,  by  the  peace  of  Aix 
la  Chapelle — five  years  after  which,  the  attorney  and  solicitor  gen 
eral,  sir  Dudley  Ryder,  and  Murray,  afterwards  lord  Mansfield/ 
gave  it  as  their  official  opinion  that  the  treaty  of  neutrality  of  1686y 
was  then  yet  in  force. 

The  same  question  occurred  in  1765,  after  the  close  of  the  se 
ven  years'  war,  when  the  attorney  and  solicitor  general,  Norton  and 
De  Grey,  gave  it  as  their  opinion  that  the  treaty  of  neutrality  was 
not  then  in  force  ;  but  the  advocate  general,  sir  James  Marriott,, 
gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  it  was,  and  supported  his  opinion  by  an 
elaborate,  ingenious,  and  forcible  argument. 

These  opinions  are  all  to  be  found  in  the  second  volume  of  Chal 
mers's  Collection  of  Opinions  of  Eminent  Lawyers,  pp.  339 — 355; 
and  as  the  result  of  the  whole,  Chitty,  in  his  Treatise  on  the  Laws 
of  Commerce  and  Manufactures,  a  work  published  in  1820,  says  ; 
"  It  has  been  considered  that  a  general  commercial  treaty,  not  lim- 
"  ited  by  its  terms  to  a  particular  time,  is  only  suspended  by  a  war, 
"  and,  that  upon  the  return  of  peace,  it  will  tacitly  revive,  by 
"implication,  unless  there  be  an  express  declaration  to  the  con- 
"trary."  Chitty,  p.  45.* 

By  the  concurrent  testimony,  therefore  of  the  writers  upon  the 
laws  of  nations,  and  of  the  most  eminent  British  statesmen  and 
lawyers  of  the  present  age,  the  general  position  that  war  abrogates 
all  treaties,  and  the  particular  inference  from  it,  that  by  the  abro 
gation  of  treaties,  the  rights  or  liberties  stipulated  in  them  are  con  • 

*  For  the  references  to  these  British  authorities,  relative  to  the  effect  of  war, 
upon  treaties,  and  treaty  stipulations,  I  have  to  acknowledge  rny  obligation 
to  a  learned  and   ingenious  friend,   a   member  of  the  Senate  of  the  Unite  ; 
States, 


199 

-equently  discontinued,  are  both  utterly  destitute  of  foundation.  1 
have  been  the  more  anxiously  earnest  in  the  developement  of  this 
demonstration,  because  the  error  of  Mr.  Russell,  both  as  to  the 
principle  and  its  consequence,  is  by  no  means  confined  to  him.  In 
the  above  extracts  it  will  appear,  that  it  was  entertained  by  lord 
Auckland  himself,  until  called  upon  in  the  deliberations  upon  the 
peace  of  Amiens,  to  examine  thoroughly  the  doctrines  of  the  wri 
ters  on  the  laws  of  nations  relating  to  the  subject.  Be  the  opinion 
of  Mr.  Russell  what  it  may,  the  portion  of  the  fisheries  to  which 
we  are  entitled,  even  within  the  British  territorial  jurisdiction,  is 
of  great  importance  to  this  Uniofi.  To  New-England  it  is  among 
the  most  valuable  of  earthly  possessions.  But  the  whole  fishery 
of  the  Banks,  and  in  the  adjoining  seas,  is  at  stake,  upon  the  prin 
ciples  of  Mr.  Russell  :  by  his  doctrine  we  now  hold  it  at  the  breath 
of  Great  Britain  ;  for,  by  a  declaration  of  war,  she  can  extinguish 
it  forever.  The  foundations  of  the  Union  itself  are  shaken  by 
this  opinion.  If  the  fisheries  of  New-England  are  held  at  the 
pleasure  of  Great  Britain,  one  of  the  main  purposes  of  the  Union 
to  the  people  of  New-England  is  taken  away.  So  long  as  Great 
Britain  holds  a  preponderating  power  upon  the  ocean,  whenever 
a  war  between  her  and  the  United  States  may  occur,  this  greafc 
interest  of  New-England  will  be  the  first  to  suffer,  and  in  the  most 
distressing  manner.  If,  besides  the  endurance  of  this  peculiar  hard 
ship  which  is  unavoidable,  New-England  is  to  be  told  that  her  liber 
ties  in  the  fisheries  themselves,  are  nothing  but  voluntary  donations 
of  Great  Britain,  which  she  has  a  right  to  resume,  on  the  first  firing 
of  a  gun,  the^vital  interests  of  New-England  are  not  on  the  same  foot 
ing  of  protection,  by  the  Union,  as  those  of  its  other  portions.  In  the 
relative  proportions  of  power  and  influence  between  the  different 
sections  of  the  country,  New-England  will  behold,  without  envy 
and  without  regret,  her  sisters  of  the  South  and  of  the  West,  rising 
to  pre-eminence  in  wealth,  population,  and 'resources  over  herself. 
But  never  again  let  her  be  told,  and  least  of  all  by  one  of  her  own 
sons,  that  her  riglits,  tier  liberties,  or  her  possessions,  are  of  trifling 
or  insignificant  value  to  the  nation,  and  that  at  the  first  sound  of  a 
hostile  trumpet  they  will  be  abandoned  to  the  mercy  of  the  com 
mon  enemy  ;  or  surrendered  to  the  desperate  chance  of  a  repur 
chase  for  an  equivalent  wherever  it  may  be  found. 

In  my  remarks  on  Mr.  Russell's  letter,  1  expressed  the  hope, 
that  from  the  whole  history  of  this  transaction,  the  statesmen  of  this 
Union  would  take  warning  through  all  future  time,  in  their  conflicts 
with  foreign  powers  never  to  consider  any  of  the  liberties  of  this 
nation  as  abrogated  by  a  war,  or  capable  of  being  extinguished  by 
any  other  agency  than  our  own  express  renunciation.  Mr.  Russell 
takes  alarm  at  this  lest  the  implicit  renunciation  by  the  British  of 
the  right  to  navigate  the  Mississippi  should  not  be  sufficient — and 
he  says,  that  according  to  me,  that  right  is  unimpaired.  Mr.  Rus 
sell's  conclusion,  as  usual,  is  broader  than  his  premises.  He  might 
have  seen  that  the  object  of  my  remark  was  to  give  warning  to  the 


200 

statesmen  oi'  this  Union,  never  to  permit  or  abet  the  extinguish 
ment  of  any  of  our  liberties,  by  abandonment  or  surrender,  which 
would  be  tacit  renunciation.  It  was  no  purpose  of  mine  to  s*y  that 
our  liberties  could  not  be  so  extinguished.  On  the  contrary,  it  was 
precisely  because  after  the  notification  of  the  British  plenipoten 
tiaries  on  the  9th  of  August,  1814,  our  fishing  liberties  would  have 
been  tacitly  renounced,  had  we  quietly  acquiesced  in  it,  that  I  deem 
ed  the  counter  notification  in  the  note  of  10th  November,  or  a  new 
stipulation  in  the  treaty  indispensable  to  save  those  liberties  from 
extinction.  It  was  precisely  because  Mr.  Russell  had  not  only 
been  prepared  to  surrender  them,  but  so  eager  to  prove  them  al 
ready  extinct,  that  I  thought  it  necessary  to  give  this  warning  to  the 
statesmen  of  my  country,  never  hereafter  to  follow  his  example. 
It  was  that  counter  notification,  which  saved  our  liberties  (and  our 
rights  too)  in  the  fisheries.  Had  the  negotiation  with  Great  Bri 
tain  since  the  peace,  been  for  the  repurchase  of  liberties  acknow 
ledged  by  ourselves  to  be  extinct,  a  very  different  equivalent  must 
have  been  given  for  them,  from  the  naked  right  of  navigating  the  Mis 
sissippi.  The  liberties  of  this  Union  will  never  be  capable  of  being 
extinguished  otherwise  than  by  express  renunciation,  so  long  as  the 
public  servants  to  whom  the  defence  and  protection  of  them  may 
be  committed,  are  duly  determined  never  to  surrender  them  by  im 
plication.  The  incapacity  of  surrender  is  not  in  the  liberty  itself, 
but  in  the  soul  of  its  defenders. 

As  to  the  right  of  the  British  to  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi, 
they  have  not  only  renounced  it,  by  their  concurrence  with  Mr. 
Russell  that  the  treaty  of  1783  was  abrogated  by  the  war,  but  by 
stipulating  anew  boundary  line,  which  cuts  them  off  from  all  claim 
to  territory  upon  the  river,  without  reserving  the  right  to  its  navi 
gation.  They  have  abandoned  both  the  grounds  of  their  claim  to 
it — territorial  contiguity  and  treaty  stipulation  ;  and  an  effectual 
guard  against  it,  more  effectual  indeed  than  any  renunciation,  is  that 
while  they  have  no  territory  upon  its  borders,  they  never  can  have 
any  interest  in  reviving  it.  Their  very  advancing  any  claim  to  it 
at  Ghent,  was  an  inconsistency  with  their  doctrine  that  the  treaty  of 
1783  was  abrogated  by  the  war,  and  as  they  really  had  no  interest 
worth  a  straw  in  the  claim,  they  finally  abandoned  it,  to  redeem 
their  consistency.  They,  like  Mr.  Russell,  were  willing  enough  to 
adopt  one  principle  tor  operation  upon  their  own  claims  and  its  op 
posite  principle,  to  affect  the  claims  of  their  adversary  ;  but  as  the 
object  of  their  claim  was  of  no  real  value,  they  finally  preferred  to 
abandon  their  claim,  rather  than  formally  to  renounce  their  doc 
trine. 

But  there  is  one  object  which  to  Mr.  Russell,  as  a  member  of 
Congress,  seems  to  present  matter  for  very  serious  consideration. 
If  the  navigation  downwards  of  the  Mississippi,  by  British  subjects, 
with  merchandise  on  which  the  duties  have  been  paid,  and  subject 
to  all  the  custom-house  regulations,  is  a  power  of  such  tremendous 
consequence  to  the  Union,  and  especially  to  the  unoffending  inha- 


201 

\ 

bitants  of  the  Western  Country  ;  if  it  surrenders  them  all  to  British 
smugglers,  British  emissaries,  and  the  tomahawk  of  the  Indian  sa 
vage,  why  has  it  never  been  prohibited  by  law  ?  How  has  the  arm 
ef  the  Union  been  palsied?  Why  has  the  guardian  and  protecting 
power  of  the  national  government  so  long  slumbered  ?  There  was 
nothing  proposed  to  be  stipulated  by  the  offer  made  to  the  British 
plenipotentiaries  on  the  first  of  December,  1814,  which  British  sub 
jects  do  not  at  this  hour  possess,  and  have  never  ceased  to  enjoy, 
without  any  stipulation  whatsoever.  By  the  act  of  Congress  admitting 
the  State  of  Louisiana  into  the  Union,  it  is  provided  "  that  it  shall  be 
*'  taken  as  a  condition  upon  which  the  said  State  is  incorporated  in 
"  the  Union,  that  the  river  Mississippi,  and  the  navigable  rivers  and 
"  waters  leading  into  the  same,  and  into  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  shall  be 
"  common  highways,  and  forever  free,  as  well  to  the  inhabitants  of 
"  said  State  as  to  the  inhabitants  of  other  States,  and  the  territories 
*'  of  the  United  States,  without  any  tax,  duty,  impost,  or  toll,  there- 
*'  for,  imposed  by  the  said  State."  That  which  is  a  common  high 
way,  free  to  all  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  by  this  act,  and  by 
the  constitution  of  the  State  of  Louisiana,  is  in  point  of  fact  equally 
free  to  all  foreigners  at  peace  with  the  United  States,  and  conse 
quently  to  British  subjects.  It  can  be  prohibited  only  by  law,  and 
no  such  law  is  in  existence. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  right  of  navigation  offered  by  Mr, 
Gallatin's  proposal,  was  only  that  of  descending  the  river,  from  its 
source  to  the  ocean.  It  did  not  bind  us  to  admit  them  to  a  right  of 
ascending  the  river,  from  the  sea,  or  to  allow  their  vessels  to  pass 
above  the  first  port  of  entry  in  the  river. 

It  remains  only  to  be  shown,  that  the  estimates  of  Mr.  Russell, 
with  regard  to  the  value  of  the  fishing  liberties,  are  as  erroneous,  as 
his  opinions  with  regard  to  our  title  to  them  are  incorrect. 


202 


HL    Fishing  Liberties — their  Valut. 

OF  all  the  errors  in  Mr.  Russell's  letter  of  1 1th  February,  181  £, 
to  the  Secretary  of  State,  there  is  none  more  extraordinary  in  its 
character,  or  more  pernicious  in  its  tendency,  than  the  disparaging 
estimate  which  he  holds  forth  of  the  -value  of  the  liberties  in  the 
fisheries,  secured  by  the  treaty  of  1733,  and,  as  he  would  maintain, 
extinguished,  by  the  war  of  1812.  Not  satisfied  with  maintaining 
in  the  face  of  his  own  signatures  at  Ghent,  the  doctrine  that  all  right 
to  them  had  been  irredeemably  extinguished  by  the  war  ;  not  con 
tented  with  the  devotion  of  all  his  learning  and  all  his  ingenuity,  to 
take  from  his  country  the  last  and  only  support  of  right  upon  which, 
this  great  interest  had,  by  himself  and  his  colleagues,  been  left  at 
ihe  conclusion  of  the  peace  to  depend  ;  not  ashamed  of  urging  the 
total  abandonment  of  a  claim,  at  that  very  time  in  litigation,  and  of 
•which  he  was  himself  one  of  the  official  defenders,  he  has  exhausted 
his  powers,  active  and  meditative,  in  the  effort  to  depreciate  the 
value  of  those  possessions,  which,  while  committed  to  his  charge, 
he  was  so  surprisingly  intent  upon  relinquishing  forever. 

His  first  attempt  in  this  patriotic  career,  is  to  represent  this  in 
terest  as  a  merely  sectional  and  very  trifling  concern,  brought  in 
conflict  at  Ghent  with  another  but  a  much  greater  and  deeper  inte 
rest  of  a  different  section  of  the  Union. 

His  next  endeavour  is  to  represent  it  as  an  exclusive  interest  of  a 
few  individuals,  the  mere  accommodation  of  a  few  fishermen,  annu 
ally  decreasing  in  number. 

And,  finally,  he  degrades  the  value  of  the  object  itself,  by  affirm 
ing  that  the  fogs  in  the  high  northern  latitudes  prevented  the  effectual 
curing  of  the  fish,  and  that  this  liberty  was  totally  unnecessary  to  us 
for  subsistence  or  occupation,  and  afforded  in  no  way,  (in  the  du 
plicate  he  says  in  nohonest  way,)  any  commercial  facility  or  political 
advantage. 

It  is  scarcely  possible  to  render  a  greater  disservice  to  the  peo 
ple  of  this  Union,  than  in  their  controversies  with  foreign  powers* 
to  array  the  interests  of  one  section  of  the  Union  against  those  of 
another.  On  no  occasion  can  this  be  so  dangerous  as  when  the 
power,  with  whom  the  negotiation  is  held,  has  the  purpose  of  wrest 
ing  from  us  the  enjoyment  of  such  a  possession,  the  immediate  in 
terest  of  which  is  confined  to  one  section  ;  and  1  confidently  affirm, 
that  never  since  the  existence  of  the  United  States  as  an  independ 
ent  nation,  has  there  been  an  emergency  upon  which  there  was  less 
reason  for  flinging  into  the  discussion  this  torch  of  dissension,  thnn 
at  the  negotiation  of  Ghent.  The  aim  of  tbe  enemy  was  at  the  fish 
eries.  His  object  was  to  deprive  us  of  them.  The  American  ple 
nipotentiaries  were  instructed  not  to  surrender  them.  What  more 
could  the  enemy  desire,  than  to  excite  within  the  American  mission 
itself,  a  sectional  interest  adverse  to  that  of  the  fisheries  ?  He  did 
so  ;  and  so  far  as  Mr.  Russell  dared  to  indulge  his  disposition,  mo?* 


203 

successfully.  Had  Mr,  Russell  been  in  (lie  mission  of  Great  Bri 
tain  instead  of  that  of  the  United  States,  he  could  not  have  perform 
ed  a  more  zealous  and  acceptable  service,  than  by  maintaining  the 
doctrines  of  his  letter  of  llth  February,  1815.  As  to  the  object 
at  issue,  it  was  their  argument  that  he  urged.  As  to  the  spirit  he 
excited,  it  was  their  interest  he  was  promoting.  Excellent  indeed 
would  have  been  the  account  to  which  they  would  have  turned 
their  right  of  navigating  the  Mississippi,  if,  at  the  very  moment  while 
they  disclaimed  it,  they  could  have  obtained  for  its  renunciation, 
that  of  these  United  States  to  their  fishing  liberties.  Besides  the 
immense  disproportion  of  what  they  would  have  gained  by  the  ex 
change,  they  would  have  planted  in  the  heart  of  the  Union,  a  root 
of  bitterness  which  never  could  have  been  plucked  up  but  with 
its  blood.  Had  the  fisheries  been  surrendered — when  the  people 
of  New-England  came  to  inquire  where  were  their  liberties  m 
them,  and  how  they  had  been  lost  ?  what  would  their  feelings  have 
been  to  be  told — they  were  lost,  that  we  might  gain  the  right  offer- 
bidding  British  subjects  from  descending  the  Mississippi  river  in 
boats  ?  With  what  human  endurance  would  they  have  heard  it  said, 
We  have  lost  nothing,  upon  the  whole.  You,  indeed,  have  lost 
your  fisheries — but  we  have  acquired  the  right  of  interdicting  all 
Englishmen  from  travelling  a  highway  in  the  Western  Country.— 
It  was  not  in  the  power  of  man  to  devise  an  expedient  better  suited 
to  detach  the  affections  of  the  people  of  New-England  from  the 
Union,  or  to  fill  their  bosoms  with  heart-burning  and  jealousy 
against  the  people  of  the  West. 

I  have  already  shown  that  the  importance  which  Mr.  Russell 
strains  to  the  utmost  ail  his  faculties  to  give  to  this  British  right  of 
navigating  the  Mississippi,  is  all  founded  upon  a  mis-statement  of 
what  it  was.  He  begins  by  saying  that  it  would  be  absurd  to  sup 
pose  that  the  article  meant  no  more  than  what  it  expressly  purport- 
ed  to  mean  ;  and  then  he  infers  that  it  would  have  been  understood 
to  mean  the  same  thing  as  the  third  article  of  the  treaty  of  1794  ; 
and  as  the  free  access,  both  of  intercourse  and  of  trade  with  the  In 
dians  within  our  territories,  which  that  had  given  to  the  British,  had 
caused  inconveniences  to  us,  which  had  been  mentioned  in  the  in 
structions  of  15th  April,  1813,  he  infers  that  all  the  same  evils 
would  have  flowed  from  the  continuance  of  their  right  to  navigate 
the  Mississippi.  No  such  inference  could  have  been  drawn  from 
the  article.  The  article  was  precisely  what  it  purported  to  be,  and 
no  more  ;  and  if,  under  colour  of  it,  British  subjects  had  ever  at 
tempted  to  give  it  a  greater  extension,  it  would  always  have  been 
entirely  in  the  power  of  the  American  government  to  control  them. 

It   is   the  first  common-place  of  false   and  sophistical  reason 
ing,  to  mis-stale  the  question  in  discussion  ;  and  Mr.  Russell,  after 
making  this,  without  reason  or  necessity,  a  question  of  one  sectional 
interest  against  another,  changes  the  nature  of  the  question  itself, 
for  the  double  purpose  of  magnifying  the  Wostorn,  and  of  diminish 


204 

ing  the  Eastern  interest,  which  he  has  brought  in  conflict  with  each 
other. 

I  have  shown  that  the  proposal  actually  made  to  the  British  ple 
nipotentiaries,  was,  hy  the  admission  of  Mr.  Russell  himself,  so 
worthless,  that  it  was  nothing  that  they  could  accept ;  as  in  fact  it 
was  not  accepted  by  them.  Let  us  now  see  what  was  the  value  of 
this  fishery ;  this  *«  doubtful  accommodation  of  a  few  fishermen, 
annually  decreasing  in  number." 

From  the  tables  in  Dr.  Seybert's  Statistical  Annals,  it  will  be 
seen  that  in  the  year  1807,  there  were  upwards  of  seventy  thou> 
sand  tons  of  shipping  employed  in  the  cod  fishery  alone  ;  and  that 
in  that  and  the  four  preceding  years,  the  exports  from  the  United 
States  of  the  proceeds  of  the  fisheries,  averaged  three  millions  of 
dollars  a  year.  There  was  indeed  a  great  diminution  during  the 
years  subsequent  to  1807,  till  the  close  of  the  war — certainly  not 
voluntary,  but  occasioned  by  the  state  of  our  mnritime  relations 
with  Europe,  by  our  own  restrictive  system,  and  finally  by  the 
war.  But  no  sooner  was  that  terminated,  than  the  fisheries  reviv 
ed,  and  in  the  year  18 1G,  the  year  after  Mr.  Russell's  letter  was 
written,  there  were  again  upwards  of  sixty-eight  thousand  tons, 
employed  in  the  cod  fishery  alone.  From  Dr.  Seybert's  state 
ments,  it  appears  further,  that  in  this  occupation  the  average  of  sea 
men  employed  is  of  about  one  man  to  every  seven  tons  of  shipping, 
so  that  these  vessels  were  navigated  by  ten  thousand,  of  the  har 
diest,  most  skilful,  soberest,  and  best  mariners  in  the  world. — 
•c  Every  person  (says  Dr.  Seybert,)  on  board  our  fishing  vessels, 
"  has  an  interest  in  common  with  his  associates  ;  their  reward  de- 
;t  pends  upon  their  industry  and  enterprise.  Much  caution  is  ob- 
"  served  in  the  selection  of  the  crews  of  our  fishing  vessels  :  it  often 
"  happens  that  every  individual  is  connected  by  blood,  and  the 
'*  strongest  ties  of  friendship.  Our  fishermen  are  remarkable  for 
"  their  sobriety  and  good  conduct,  and  they  rank  with  the  most 
c;  skilful  navigators." 

Of  these  ten  thousand  men,  and  of  their  wives  and  children,  the 
cod  fisheries,  if  I  may  be  allowed  the  expression,  were  the  daily 
bread — their  property — their  subsistence.  To  how  many  thou 
sands  more  were  the  labours  and  the  dangers  of  their  lives  subser 
vient  ?  Their  game  was  not  only  food  and  raiment  to  themselves, 
but  to  millions  of  other  human  beings. 

There  is  something  in  the  very  occupation  of  fishermen,  not 
only  beneficent  in  itself  but  noble  and  exalted  in  the  qualities  of 
which  it  requires  the  habitual  exercise.  In  common  with  the  cul 
tivators  of  the  soil,  their  labours  contribute  to  the  subsistence  of 
mankind,  and  they  have  the  merit  of  continual  exposure  to  danger, 
superadded  to  that  of  unceasing  toil.  Industry,  frugality,  patience, 
perseverance,  fortitude,  intrepidity,  souls  inured  to  perpetual  con 
flict  with  the  elements,  arid  bodies  steeled  with  unremitting  action, 
ever  grappling  with  danger,  and  familiar  with  death  :  these  are 
the  properties  to  which  the  fisherman  of  the  ocean  is  formed  by 


205 

the  daily  labours  of  his  life.     These  are  the  properties  for  whid 
he  who  knew  what  was  in  man,  the  Saviour  of  mankind,  sought, 
his  first,  and  found   his  most  faithful,  ardent,  and  undaunted  disci 
ples  among  the  fishermen  of  his  country.  In  the  deadliest  rancours 
of  national  wars,  the  examples  of  latter  ages  have  been  frequent 
of  exempting,  by  the  common  consent  of  the  most  exasperated  ene 
mies   fishermen  from  the  operation  of  hostilities.     In  our  treaties 
with  Prussia,  they  are  expressly  included  among  the  classes  of  men 
"whose  occupations  are  for  the  common  subsistence  and  benefit  of 
mankind;'''  with  a  stipulation,  that  in  the  event  of  war  between 
the  parties,  they  shall  be  allowed  to  continue  their  employment 
without  molestation.    Nor  is  their  devotion  to  their  country  less 
Conspicuous  than  their  usefulness  to  their  kind.     While  the  hunts 
man  of  the  ocean,  far  from  his  native  land,  from  his  family,  and 
his  fire-side,  pursues  at  the  constant  hazard  of  life,  his  game  upon 
the  bosom  of  the  deep,  the  desire  of  his  heart,  is  by  the  nature  of 
his  situation  ever  intently  turned  towards  his  home,  his  children, 
and  his  country.     To  be  lost  to  them  gives  their  keenest  edge  to  his 
fears  ;  to  return  with  the  fruits  of  his  labours  to  them  is  the  object  of 
all  his  hopes.  By  no  men  upon  earth  have  these  qualities  and  disposi 
tions  been  more  constantly  exemplified   than  by  the  fishermen  of 
New-England.     From  the  proceeds  of  their  >;  perilous  and  hardy 
industry,"  the  value  of  three  millions  of  dollars  a  year,  for  five 
years  preceding  1808,  was  added  to  the  exports  of  the  United 
States.     This  was  so  much  of  national  wealth  created  by  the  fish 
ery.     With  what  branch  of  the  whole  body  of  our  commerce  was 
this  interest  unconnected  ?  Into  what  artery  or  vein  of  our  politi 
cal  body  did  it  not  circulate  wholesome  blood  ?  To  what  sinew  of 
our  national  arm  did  it  not  impart  firmness  and  energy  ?    We  are 
told  they  were  "  annually  decreasing  in  number  :"  Yes  !  they  had 
lost  their  occupation  by  the  war  ;  and  where  were  they  during  the 
war  ?  They  were  upon  the  ocean  and  upon  the  lakes,  fighting  the 
battles  of  their  country.     Turn  back  to  the  records  of  your  revo 
lution — ask  Samuel  Tucker,  himself  one  of  the  number  ;  a  living 
example  of  the  character  common  to  them  all,  what  were  the  fish 
ermen  of  New-England,  in  the  tug  of  war  for  Independence  ?  Ap 
peal  to  the  heroes  of  all  our  naval  wars — ask  the  vanquishers  of 
Algiers  and  Tripoli — ask  the  redeemers  of  your  citizens  from  the 
chains  of  servitude,  and  of  your  nation  from  the  humiliation  of 
annual  tribute  to  the  barbarians  of  Africa — call  on  the  champions 
of  our  last  struggles  with   Britain— ask  Hull,  and    Bainbridge,  ask 
Stewart,  Porter,  andMacdonough,  what  proportion  of  New-England, 
fishermen  were  the  companions  of  their  victories,  and  sealed  the 
proudest  of  our  triumphs  with  their  blood  ;  and  then  listen  if  you 
can,  to  be  told,  that  the  unoffending  citizens  of  the  West  were  not 
at  all  benefited  by  the  fishing  privilege,  and  that  the  few  fisher 
men  in  a  remote  quarter,  were  entirely  exempt  from  the  danger. 

But  we  are  told  also  that  "  by  far  the  greatest  part  of  the  fish 
f«ken  by  our  fishermen  before  the  present  war,  was  caught  in  tho 


206 

open  sea,  or  upon  our  own  coasts,  and  cured  on  our  own  shores." 
This  assertion  is,  like  the  rest,  erroneous. 

The  shore  fishery  is  carried  on  in  vessels  ofless  than  twenty  tons 
burthen,  the  proportion  of  which,  as  appears  by  Seyhert's  Statisti 
cal  Annals,  is  about  one  seventh  of  the  whole.  With  regard  to 
the  comparative  value  of  the  Bank,  and  Labrador  fisheries,  I  sub 
join  hereto,  information  collected  from  several  persons,  acquainted 
with  them,  as  their  statements  themselves  will  show  in  their  mi 
nutest  details. 

At  an  early  period  of  the  negotiation,  I  had  been  satisfied,  that 
the  British  plenipotentiaries  would  not  accept  the  renewal  of  the 
8th  article  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  (the  Mississippi  navigation)  as  an 
equivalent  for  the  renewal  of  the  third,  (the  fisheries.)  In  the 
correspondence  which  followed  their  notification  at  the  first  con 
ference,  that  their  government  did  not  intend  to  grant  the  former 
fishing  liberties  without  an  equivalent,  they  had  even  dropped 
their  claim  for  an  article  renewing  their  right  of  navigating  the 
Mississippi,  until  we  met  their  pretension  that  the  fisheries  had 
been  forfeited  by  the  war,  which  we  first  did  in  our  note  of  the  10th 
of  November,  1814.  The  principle  upon  which  I  had  always  re 
lied,  was,  that  the  rights  and  liberties  recognised  in  the  3d  article 
of  the  treaty  of  1783,  had  not  been  abrogated  by  the  war,  and 
would  remain  in  full  force  after  the  peace,  unless  we  should  re 
nounce  them  expressly  by  an  article  in  the  treaty,  or  tacitly  by 
acquiescing  in  the  principle  asserted  by  the  British  plenipotentia 
ries.  There  was  a  period  during  the  negotiations,  when  it  was 
probable  they  might  be  suspended,  until  the  American  commis 
sioners  could  receive  new  instructions  from  their  government, 
After  the  peace  was  signed  I  was  aware  that  the  question  relating 
to  the  fisheries,  must  become  a  subject  of  discussion  with  the  Bri 
tish  government;  and  I  had  been  previously  informed  by  the  Se 
cretary  of  State,  that  if  the  negotiation  should  result  in  the  con 
clusion  of  peace,  it  was  the  President's  intention  to  nominate  me 
for  the  subsequent  mission  to  Great  Britain.  I  felt  it,  therefore, 
to  be  peculiarly  my  duty  to  seek  the  best  information  that  I  could 
obtain,  in  relation  both  to  the  rights  and  liberties  in  the  fisheries, 
as  recognised  in  the  treaty  of  1783,  and  to  their  value.  The  fol 
lowing  are  extracts  of  two  letters  written  by  me  from  Ghent,  to  one 
of  the  negotiators  of  the  treaty  of  1783.  By  attending  to  the  dates 
it  will  be  seen,  that  the  first  of  them  was  written  three  days  before 
the  first  proposal  by  Mr.  Gallaiin,  of  the  article  relating  to  the 
Mississippi  and  the  fisheries,  and  the  second,  two  days  after  the 
signature  of  the  peace. 

Ghent,  27th  October,  1814. 

"  My  dear  sir  :  The  situation  in  which  I  am  placed,  often  brings 
to  my  mind  that  in  which  you  were  situated  in  the  year  1782,  and 
1  will  not  describe  the  feelings  with  which  the  comparison,  or  1 
might  rather  say,  the  contrast  affects  me,  1  am  called  to  support 


207 

the  same  interests,  and  in  many  respects  the  same  identical  points 
and  questions.  The  causes  in  which  the  present  war  originated, 
and  for  which  it  was  on  our  part  waged,  will  scarcely  form  the  most, 
insignificant  item  in  the  negotiation  tor  peace.  It  is  not  impress 
ment  and  unalienable  allegiance,  blockades  and  orders  in  council, 

colonial  trade  and  maritime  rights,  or  belligerent  and  neutral  colli 
sions  of  any  kind  that  form  the  subjects  of  our  discussion.  It  is  the 
boundary,  the  fisheries,  and  the  Indian  savages. 

"  It  is  nothing  extraordinary  but  a  strong  evidence  of  the  real 
character  of  the  contest  in  which  we  are  engaged,  that  the  most 
offensive  and  inadmissible  of  the  British  demands  are  pointed 
against  the  State  of  Massachusetts.  It  is  a  part  of  her  territory 
of  which  they  require  the  cession,  and  it  is  the  fisheries  of  her 
citizens  which  they  declare  themselves  determined  no  longer  to 
allow.  It  is  not  the  general  right  to  the  fisheries  which  they  con 
test,  but  the  liberty  of  fishing  and  of  drying  fish  within  their  juris 
diction,  stipulated  in  the  3d  article  of  the  peace  of  1783.  For  my 
own  part,  I  consider  the  whole  article  as  containing  parts  of  the 
general  acknowledgment  of  our  Independence,  and  therefore,  as 
needing  no  renewal  by  any  future  treaty.  But  as  the  subject  will 
certainly  come  under  the  consideration  of  the  government  of  the 
United  States,  they  will  have  time  to  give  instructions  founded  upon 
their  view  of  it,  before  any  peace  can  be  concluded.  There  is  no 
doubt,  whenever  the  negotiation  is  resumed,  that  this  point  will  be 
come  again  a  subject  for  discussion.  If  there  is  among  your  papers 
relating  to  the  negotiations  of  peace  in  1782  and  1783,  any  infor 
mation  tending  to  elucidate  the  third  article  of  those  treaties  which 
you  can  communicate  to  me,  it  may  perhaps  serve  a  valuable  pur 
pose  to  the  public.  And  as  this  letter  contains  more  than  I  should 
at  this  moment  think  myself  warranted  to  communicate  even  to 
you,  but  for  the  particular  motive  which  occasions  it,  I  must  re 
quest  of  you  to  consider  it  as  entirely  confidential. 

"  Ghent,  26th  December,  1814. 

**  My  dear  sir  :  I  transmited  by  Mr.  Hughes  a  duplicate  of  my  last 
letter  to  you,  dated  27th  October,  which  1  siill  entreat  you  to  an 
swer,  if  lam  destined  to  a  longer  continuance  in  Europe,  and  upon 
which  I  ask  all  the  advice  and  information  which  it  may  be  in  your 
power  to  bestow.  It  relates  principally  to  the  subject  of  the  great' 
est  difficulty  we  have  had  in  the  negotiation,  and  that,  which  of  all 
others,  is  left  in  the  state  the  most  unsatisfactory  to  us  and  particu 
larly  to  me.  It  has  been  now  for  a  full  month  ascertained,  that 
unless  new  pretensions  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  were  advanced, 
a  treaty  of  peace  would  be  signed  ;  but  it  was  not  until  last  Thurs 
day  that  I  ceased  to  doubt  whether  it  would  receive  my  signature. 
The  British  plenipotentiaries  had  declared  to  us  at  the  outset  of 
the  negotiation,  that  it  was  not  the  intention  of  the  British  govern 
ment  to  grant  to  the  people  of  the  United  States  in  future  the  li 
berties  of  fishing,  and  drying,  and  curing  fish  within  the  exclusivr 


British  jurisdiction  without  an  equivalent.  There  is,  as  you 
remember,  in  the  third  article  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  a  diversity  of 
expression  by  which  the  general  fisheries  on  the  Banks  are  ac 
knowledged  as  our  right,  but  these  fishing  privileges  within  the 
British  jurisdiction,  are  termed  liberties.  The  British  govern 
ment  consider  the  latter  as  franchises  forfeited  ipao  facto  by  the 
war,  and  declared  they  would  not  grant  them  anew  without  an  equi 
valent.  Aware  that  by  this  principle  they,  too,  had  forfeited  their 
right  to  navigate  the  Mississippi,  recognised  in  the  same  treaty  of 
1 783,  they  now  demanded  a  new  provision  to  secure  it  to  them  again* 

"  We  were  instructed  not  to  suffer  our  right  to  the  fisheries  to  be 
brought  into  discussion  ;  we  had  no  authority  to  admit  any  discri 
mination  between  the  first  and  the  last  parts  of  the  third  article  of 
the  treaty  of  1783.  No  power  to  offer  or  agree  to  an  equivalent 
either  for  the  rights  or  the  liberties.  I  considered  both  as  stand 
ing  on  the  same  footing  :  both  as  the  continuance  of  franchises  al 
ways  enjoyed,  and  the  difference  in  the  expressions  only  as  arising 
from  the  operation  of  our  change  from  the  condition  of  British 
subjects  to  that  of  a  sovereign  people,  upon  an  object  in  one  part  of 
general,  and  in  the  other  of  special,  jurisdiction.  The  special  ju 
risdiction  had  been  that  of  our  own  sovereign  :  by  the  revolution 
and  the  treaty  of  peace,  it  became  a  foreign,  but  still  remained  a 
special,  jurisdiction.  By  the  very  same  instrument  in  whi<;h  we 
thus  acknowledged  it  as  a  foreign*  jurisdiction,  we  reserved  to  our 
selves  with  the  full  assent  of  its  sovereign,  and  without  any  limitation, 
of  time  or  of  events,  the  franchise  which  we  had  ahvays  enjoyed 
while  the  jurisdiction  had  been  our  own. 

"  It  was  termed  &  liberty  because  it  was  a  freedom  to  be  enjoyed 
within  a  special  jurisdiction  ;  the  fisheries  on  the  Banks  were 
termed  rights  because  they  were  to  be  enjoyed  on  the  ocean,  the 
common  jurisdiction  of  all  nations  ;  but  there  was  nothing  in  the 
terms  themselves  and  nothing  in  the  article  or  in  the  treaty  imply 
ing  an  intention  or  expectation  of  either  of  the  contracting  parties, 
that  one,  more  than  the  other,  should  be  liable  to  forfeiture  by  a 
subsequent  war.  On  the  maturest  deliberation  I  still  hoid  this  ar 
gument  to  be  sound,  and  it  is  to  my  mind  the  only  one  by  which 
our  claim  to  the  fisheries  within  British  jurisdiction  can  be  main 
tained.  But  after  the  declaration  made  by  the  British  government, 
it  was  not  to  be  expected  that  they  would  be  converted  to  this 
opinion  without  much  discussion,  which  was  forbidden  to  us,  and 
the  result  of  this  must  have  been  very  doubtful  upon  minds  at  all 
times  inclined,  and  at  this  time  most  peculiarly  prone,  rather  to 
lean  upon  power  than  to  listen  to  reason.  We  stated  the  genera1; 
principle  in  one  of  our  notes  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  as 
the  ground  upon  which  our  government  deemed  no  new  stipulation 
necessary  to  secure  the  enjoyment  of  all  our  rights  and  liberties 
in  the  fisheries.  They  did  not  answer  that  part  of  our  note;  but 
they  came  to  ask  a  stipulation  for  the  right  of  British  subjects 


209 

to  navigate  the  Mississippi,  we  objected,  that  by  our  construction 
of  the  treaty  of  1783,  it  was  unnecessary.  If  we  admitted  tbeii1 
construction  of  that  treaty,  so  as  to  give  them  a  new  right  to  the 
navigation,  they  must  give  us  an  equivalent  for  it.  We  offered 
an  article  recognising  the  continuance  of  the  rights  on  both  sides  ; 
this  offer  met,  however,  with  very  great  opposition  among  our 
selves — for  there  were  two  of  us  against  making  it,  and  who  thought 
the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  incomparably  more  valuable  than 
the  contested  part  of  the  fisheries.  Not  so  did  the  British  govern 
ment  think  ;  for  they,  instead  of  accepting  it,  offered  us  an  article 
stipulating  to  negotiate  hereafter  for  an  equivalent  to  be  given  by 
Great  Britain  for  the  right  of  navigating  the  Mississippi,  and  by  the 
United  States  for  the  liberties  of  the  fisheries  within  British  juris 
diction.  This  was  merely  to  obtain  from  us  the  formal  admission 
that  both  the  rights  were  abrogated  by  the  war.  To  that  admission 
I  was  determined  not  to  subscribe.  The  article  was  withdrawn 
ta*t  Thursday  by  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  who  accepted  our 
proposal  to  say  nothing  in  the  treaty  about  either,  and  to  omit  the 
•jrliele  by  which  they  had  agreed  that  our  boundary  west  from  the 
Lake  of  the  Woods  should  be  the  49th  parallel  of  north  latitude* 
They  at  the  same  time  referred  again  to  their  original  declaration, 
that  the  fisheries  within  British  jurisdiction  would  not  hereafter  be 
granted  without  an  equivalent.  It  is  evident  that  it  must  be  the 
subject  of  a  future  negotiation.  The  only  thing  possible  to  be  done 
now,  was  to  preserve  our  whole  claim  unimpaired,  and  with  that  I 

consented  to  sign  the  treaty. 

•"  As  a  citizen  of  Massachusetts,  I  felt  it  to  be  most  peculiarly  HIV 
duty  not  to  abandon  any  one  of  her  rights,  and  I  would  have  refused 
to  sign  the  treaty  had  any  one  of  them  been  abandoned  :  but  it  was 
impossible  to  force  a  stipulation  in  favour  of  the  fisheries  ;  and  for 
a  temporary  possession  of  Moose  Island,  merely  until  it  shall  be  as 
certained  whether  it  belongs  to  her  or  not,  we  could  not  think  of 


continuing  the  war. 


"  My  colleagues  propose  to  leave  Europe  about  the  first  of 
April,  in  the  Neptune,  which  is  waiting  for  them  at  Brest.  I  have 
great  satisfaction  in  saying,  that  our  harmony  has  been  as  great  and 
constant,  as  perhaps  ever  existed  between  five  persons  employed 
together  upon  se  important  a  trust.  Upon  almost  all  the  important 
questions,  we  have  been  unanimous.  J.  Q.  A.'5 

The  information  requested  in  these  letters  was  collected,  and 
transmitted  to  me,  and  received  at  Londen  in  the  summer  of  1815, 
The  material  parts  of  it  are  contained  in  the  following  papers,  th« 
first  of  which  is  from  a  letter  of  James  Lloyd,  Esq.  to  my  corres 
pondent,  and  is  now  published  with  Mr.  Lloyd's  permission.  It 
was  written  in  consequence  of  the  communication  to  him  of  the 
above  letter  from  me,  and,  as  will  be  seen  by  its  date,  within  four 
weeks  after  tUat  of  Mr.  Russell's  letter  to  Mr.  Monroe  from  Paris. 


210 

"  Boston,  8th  March,  1815, 

64  Sir  :  In  a  former  note,  returning  the  letter  with  which  you 
had  so  obligingly  favoured  me,  I  had  the  honour  to  offer  you  my 
congratulations  on  the  termination  of*  the  war,  without  waiting  to 
know  what  were  the  grounds  of  the  treaty  which  concluded  it ; 
because,  from  the  tenor  of  the  previous  correspondence,  and  my 
personal  knowledge  of  nearly  all  the  commissioners,  1  felt  a  reli 
ance  that  the  arrangement  would  not  be  a  dishonourable,  although 
I  acknowledge  my  rejoicing  was  mingled  with  fear  least  it  should 
be,  at  least  in  some  points,  a  disadvantageous,  one  ;  and  this  expres 
sion  of  feeling  I  volunteered  with  the  more  readiness,  as  the  intelli 
gence  was  received  at  a  moment  when  the  national  character  had 
been  splendidly  illustrated  by  the  recent  achievement  at  New- 
Orleans. 

"  But  I  greeted  the  occurrence  with  smiles,  principally  not  be 
cause  I  expected  it  would  bring  or  restore  to  us  all  the  benefits  we 
possessed  under  former  treaties,  but  because  I  saw  no  chance,  but 
from  this  source,  of  happier  prospects  for  the  future.  It  was  not, 
however,  the  storm  that  howled  along  the  lakes,  or  upon  the  sea 
board,  that  created  the  apprehension  of  an  instant  for  the  fate  of  the 
contest,  but  it  was  the  hidden  fire  that  was  rumbling  within  our  own 
bosoms,  and  which,  under  the  continuance  of  the  war,  would,  I  be 
lieve,  have  made  our  country  the  theatre  of  domestic  convulsions, 
as  well  as  of  foreign  warfare,  and  perhaps  from  its  effects  have  of 
fered  up  some  parts  of  it  as  no  very  difficult  prey  to  the  mercy  of 
the  enemy. 

"  On  this  head,  I  know,  sir,  you  had  better  hopes,  and  thought 
differently  from  me  ;  and  I  have  now  only  to  say,  I  am  glad  the  ex 
periment  has  never  come  to  issue. 

'*  As  the  price  of  the  purchase  of  an  escape  from  evils  portentous 
as  these,  I  considered  it  as  probable  that  the  English  government 
might  claim  from  us  the  contested  eastern  islands,  and  interdict  all 
trade  between  us  and  her  colonial  possessions  ;  and  possibly  still 
further,  that  she  would  endeavour  to  extort  from  us  the  coast  fishe 
ries  around  her  own  shores  ;  for,  on  the  magnanimity  or  friendship 
of  Great  Britain,  or  of  any  other  nation,  in  matters  of  interest,  I 
confess  I  never  had  the  ability  to  lash  my  imagination  into  any  sort 
of  dependence  ;  but  I  did  also  cherish  the  belief  that  none  of  our 
essential  or  important  rights  or  liberties  would  be  diminished  or  sur 
rendered.  Of  the  latter,  the  one  of  the  greatest  consequence  in 
reference  to  its  intrinsic  value,  and  as  derived  from  discovery  and 
possession,  and  confirmed  by  a  formal  treaty  stipulation,  is  unques 
tionably  that  to  which  you  have  referred — the  coast  fisheries  on  the 
Shores  of  the  British  possessions  in  North  America. 

*'  These  fisheries,  as  most  advantageously  secured  to  the  United 
States  by  the  treaty  of  1783,  and  made  at  the  time,  as  1  have  always 
understood,  a  sine  qua  non  of  that  treaty,  offer  an  invaluable  fund 
of  \vealth  and  power  to  our  country  ;  one  which  has  never  been 
duly  attended  to,  nor  justly  appreciated,  but  which,  if  continued 


;md  improved,  was  destined  to  grow  with  our  growth  and  strengthen 
with  our  strength. 

"  The  prosecution  of  these  coast  and  bay  fisheries,  although  it 
had  already  become  extremely  advantageous,  had  undoubtedly 
reached,  in  a  very  small  degree,  the  extension  and  importance  it 
was  capable  of  attaining.  The  unsettled  state  of  the  commercial 
world  for  the  past  twenty  years,  and  the  more  alluring  objects  of 
mercantile  enterprise  which  such  a  state  of  things  evolved,  seemed, 
in  point  of  immediate  consideration  and  attention,  to  throw  these 
fisheries  into  the  back  ground  ;  but  still,  until  first  checked  by  the 
system  of  embargoes  and  restrictions,  and  finally  stopped  by  a  de 
claration  of  war,  the}  were  silently,  but  rapidly,  progressing,  and 
reaching  an  importance  which,  though  generally  unknown  to  iur 
country  and  its  statesmen,  had  become  highly  alarming  to  the  go 
vernments  and  more  wealthy  merchants  of  the  provinces,  and  was 
beginning  to  attract  the  attention  and  jealousy  of  the  cabinet  of 
Great  Britain  towards  them. 

'*  The  shores,  ihe  creeks,  the  inlets  of  the  Bay  of  Fundy,  the  Bay 
of  Chaleurs,  and  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  the  Straits  of  Bellisle, 
and  the  Coast  of  Labrador,  appear  to*  have  been  designed  by  the 
God  of  Nature  as  the  great  ovarium  offish  ; — the  inexhaustible  re» 
pository  of  this  species  of  food,  not  only  for  the  supply  of  the  Ame 
rican,  but  of  the  European  continent.  At  the  proper  season,  to 
catch  them  in  endless  abundance,  little  more  of  effort  is  needed  than 
to  bait  the  hook  and  pull  the  line,  and  occasionally  even  this  is  not 
necessary.  In  clear  weather,  near  the  shores,  myriads  are  visible 
and  the  strand  is  at  times  almost  literally  paved  with  them. 

"  All  this  was  gradually  making  itself  known  to  the  enterprise 
and  vigilance  of  the  New-England  fishermen,  and  for  a  few  seasons 
prior  to  the  year  1808,  the  resort  to  this  employment  had  become 
an  object  of  attention,  from  the  Thames,  at  New-London,  to  the 
Schoodic  ;  and  boats  and  vessels  of  a  small  as  well  as  a  larger  size, 
were  flocking  to  it  from  all  the  intermediate  parts  of  the  United 
States.  In  the  fishing  season,  at  the  best  places  for  catching  the 
cod,  the  New-England  fishermen,  I  am  told,  on  a  Sunday,  swarmed 
like  flies  upon  the  shores,  and  that  in  some  of  these  years,  it  pro 
bably  would  not  make  an  over  estimate  to  rate  the  Lumber  of  vessels 
employed  in  this  fishery,  belonging  to  the  United  States,  at  from 
1500  to  2000  sail,  reckoning  a  vessel  for  each  trip  or  voyage,  and 
including  the  larger  boat  fishery  ;  and  the  number,  if  the  fisheries 
were  continued >  would  shortly  be  still  further  and  very  greatly  ex» 
tended. 

**  The  nursery  for  seamen,  the  consequent  increase  of  power, 
the  mine  of  wealth,  the  accumulation  of  capital,  (for  it  has  been 
jus(Jy  observed,  that  he  who  draws  a  cod  fish  from  the  sea,  gives  a 
piece  of  silver  to  his  country,)  the  effect  upon  the  trade  and  cus 
tom  of  Great  Britain,  and  the  corresponding  advantages  to  the 
United  States,  of  which  the  enlargement  of  such  an  intercourse 
wa?  susceptible,  (for  the  stock  of  fish  appears  inexhaustible,)  you 


212 

are  much  better  able  to  conceive  than  I  am  to  describe  ;  but  I  with 
pleasure  point  them  anew  for  your  consideration,  as  on  many  ac 
counts  presenting  one  of  the  most  interesting  public  objects  to  which 
it  can  be  directed. 

Lucrative,  however,  and  imposing  in  its  individual  and  national 
bearings,  as  this  fishery  was  and  was  to  become,  it  was  little  known 
to  the  leading  men  of  our  country,  and  little  spoken  of  by  others, 
even  in  Massachusetts,  or  among  those  who  were  actually  engaged 
in  it,  and  a  knowledge  of  its  existence  in  any  thing  like  its  real 
extent,  or  future  capability,  was  perhaps  confined  to  not  more  than 
half  a  dozen  heads,  (if  so  many,)  in  the  whols  of  the  Southern  and 
Western,  and  even  Middle  divisions  of  the  Union. 

"  The  causes  of  its  value  and  importance  not  being  a  matter  of 
great  notoriety  here,  are  obvious  ;  it  was  an  employment  not  only 
in  the  fishery,  but  in  many  instances  undoubtedly  in  trode,  with 
the  British  inhabitants  ;  those  who  were  engaged  in  it  made  no  un 
necessary  promulgations  of  their  employment,  while  the  poorer  in 
habitants  of  the  provinces,  tasting  equally  its  sweets  and  advan 
tages,  were  alike  disposed  to  keep  silence  with  regard  to  it ;  but  not 
so  situated  were  the  provincfal  governments,  and  the  more  wealthy 
of  the  merchants  of  the  sea-port  towns.  They  had  become  highly 
alarmed  at  the  expansion  of  this  fishery  and  trade ;  jealous  of  its 
progress  and  clamorous  at  its  endurance;  they,  therefore,  of  late 
years,  have  repeatedly  memorialized  the  government  in  England, 
respecting  the  fisheries  carried  on  by  the  Americans,  while  the 
whole  body  of  Scottish  adventurers,  whose  trade  both  in  imports 
and  exports,  and  control  over  the  inhabitants  it  curtailed,  have 
turned  out  in  full  cry  and  joined  the  chorus  of  the  colonial  govern- 
ments'in  a  crusade  against  the  encroachments  of  the  infidels,  the 
disbelievers  in  the  divine  authority  of  kings,  or  the  rights  of  the 
provinces,  and  have  pursued  their  objects  so  assiduously  that  at 
their  own  expense,  as  I  am  informed  from  a  respectable  source,  in 
the  year  1807  or  8,  they  stationed  a  watchman  in  some  favourable 
position  near  the  Straits  of  Canso,  to  count  the  number  of  American 
vessels  which  passed  those  straits  on  this  employment ;  who  re 
turned  nine  hundred  and  thirty  eight  as  the  number  actually  ascer - 
tained  by  him  to  have  passed,  and  doubtless  many  others,  during 
the  night  or  in  stormy  or  thick  weather,  escaped  his  observation  ; 
and  some  of  these  addressers  have  distinctly  looked  forward  with 
gratification  to  a  state  of  war,  as  a  desirable  occurrence,  which 
would,  by  its  existence,  annul  existing  treaty  stipulations,  so  inju 
rious,  as  they  contend,  to  their  interests  and  those  of  the  nation. 
With  what  degree  of  correctness  this  expectation  has  been  enter 
tained,  the  future  must  determine  ;  but  unfortunately  these  mur- 
niurs  and  complaints  reached  England,  and  were  industriously  cir 
culated  about  the  time  that  our  restrictive  measures  awakened  an 
unusual  and  critical  attention  to  the  commercial  connection  between 
the  two  countries,  and  probably  the  value  and  importance  of  this 
branch  of  it  is  now  at  least  as  fully  understood  and  appreciated  ou 
the  eastern  as  xm  the  western  side  of  the  Atlantic, 


213 

'*  Carried  away  by  first  impressions,  a  large  part  of  mankind  be 
come  not  unfrequently  the  dupes  of  misconception,  and  adhere  to 
their  opinions  with  a  pertinacity  proportioned  to  the  time  they  have 
entertained  them.  From  a  source  something  like  this,  it  has  been, 
and  is  generally,  I  might  almost  say,  universally,  believed,  by  the 
mass  of  our  countrymen,  that  the  right  of  fishing  on  the  Banks  of 
Newfoundland,  or  as  it  is  properly  called,  the  Grand  Bank,  was  the 
great  boon  acquired,  as  it  respected  the  fisheries,  by  the  treaty  of 
1783,  while  unquestionably  the  fisheries  on  the  Banks  of  New 
foundland  no  more  belonged  exclusively  in  possession  or  the  right 
of  control  either  to  Great  Britain  or  the  United  States,  than  the  air 
of  Heaven  is  the  patent  property  of  both  or  either  of  them,  with 
power  to  dole  out  its  use  to  such  other  nations  as  agree  to  conform 
to  the  stipulations  they  may  please  to  prescribe  for  its  enjoyment. 
If  any  thin"  was  gained  or  secured  on  this  head,  it  undoubtedly  was 
the  Coast  Fisheries,  on  the  shores  of  the  British  provinces.  This 
is  the  fishery  which  will  now  come  under  discussion,  at  least,  if  not 
into  contest,  between  the  two  countries.  It  is  highly  important  that 
correct  ideas  of  its  value  and  extent  should  be  entertained,  and  per 
haps  these  could  not  be  more  perspicuously  traced  than  by  taking 
a  relative  view  of  it,  compared  with  the  importance  of  the  Bank 
Fishery.  This  I  will  now  briefly  attempt ;  confident,  (hat  if  in  do 
ing  it  I  should  be  reiterating  to  you  the  communication  of  facts  of 
a  knowledge  of  which  you  are  already  acquainted,  the  motive  will 
bring  along  with  it  its  own  sufficient  apology. 

"  The  Batik  Fishery  is  carried  on  in  vessels  generally  from  70  to 
00  tons  burthen,  and  manned  with  eight  or  ten  men  each.  They 
commence  their  voyages  early  in  March^  and  continue  in  this  em 
ployment  until  the  last  of  October,  in  which  time  they  make  two, 
and  sometimes  three,  fares  to  the  United  States,  bringing  their  fish 
home  to  be  cured.  The  produce  of  these  trips,  if  successful,  after 
paying  the  shoresmen  the  expense  of  making  or  curing,  generally 
furnishes  a  sufficient  quantity  of  dried  fish  to  load  the  vessel  for 
Europe.  These  vessels  employed  in  fishing  require  cables  of 
from  160  to  180  fathoms  in  length.  They  must  always  keep  their 
sails  bent  to  the  yards,  so  as  to  be  ready,  in  case  of  accident  to  the 
cable,  or  any  of  those  adverse  occurrences  to  which  tempests  or  the 
casualties  incident  to  anchoring  nearly  in  mid-ocean,  must  expose 
them.  They  purchase  salted  clams  for  bait,  which  they  procure  at 
considerable  expense,  and  take  with  them  from  the  United  States. 
They  fish  night  and  day,  when  the  fish  bite  well,  which  is  not  always 
the  case,  and  haul  their  cod  in  a  depth  of  water  from  45  to  55  fa 
thoms.  After  catching,  they  head  and  open  the  fish,  and  place 
them  in  the  hold,  in  an  uncured,  and  consequently,  in  some  degree, 
in  a  partially  perishing  state  ;  and  after  having  obtained  a  fare,  or 
freight,  return  with  it  to  the  United  States,  to  be  cured  or  dried  and 
prepared  for  exportation  ;  but  before  this  is  done,  or  they  can  be 
landed,  the  fish  is  always  more  or  less  deteriorated,  becomes  soft 
jpr,  and  part  of'it  makes  an  inferior  quality  of  fish,  called  Jamaica 


2H 

fish,  and  the  proportion  of  this  Jamaica  fish  is  much  greater  than  it 
would  have  been  had  the  fish  been  dried  and  cured  shortly  after 
having  been  taken,  as  is  the  case  with  the  Coast  and  Bay  Fishery  ; 
in  addition  to  which,  these  vessels  employed  in  the  Bank  Fishery 
are  unavoidably  obliged  to  prosecute  this  business  with  a  great 
comparative  expense,  as  to  the  wear  and  tear  of  their  vessels,  and 
loss  of  time,  and  with  an  increased  degree  of  hazard,  both  as  to 
safety  and  success. 

"  The  Coast  and  Labrador  Fisheries  are  prosecuted  in  vessels  of 
from  40  to  120  tons  burthen,  carrying  a  number  of  men,  according 
to  their  respective  sizes,  in  about  the  same  proportion  as  the  ves 
sels  on  the  Bank  Fishery.  They  commence  their  voyages  in  May, 
and  get  on  the  fishing  ground  about  the  1st  of  June,  before  which 
time  bait  cannot  be"  obtained.  This  bait  is  furnished  by  a  small 
species  of  fish  called  capling,  which  strike  in  shore  at  that  time, 
and  are  followed  by  immense  shoals  of  cod  fish,  which  feed  upon 
them.  Each  vessel  selects  its  own  fishing  ground,  along  the  coasts 
of  the  Bay  of  Chaleurs,  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  the  Straits  of 
Bellisle,  the  Coast  of  Labrador,  even  as  far  as  Cumberland  Island, 
and  the  entrance  of  Hudson's  Bay,  thus  improving  a  fishing  ground 
reaching  in  extent  from  the  45th  to  the  68th  degree  of  north  latitude, 

"  In  choosing  their  situation,  the  fishermen  generally  seek  some 
sheltered  and  safe  harbour,  or  cove,  where  tliey  anchor  in  about 
six  or  seven  fathoms  water,  unbend  their  sails,  stow  them  below,  and 
literally  making  themselves  at  home,  dismantle  and  convert  their  ves 
sels  into  habitations  at  least  as  durable  as  those  of  the  ancient  Scy 
thian?.  They  then  cast  a  net  over  the  stern  of  the  vessel,  in  which 
a  sufficient  number  of  capling  are  soon  caught  to  supply  them  with 
bait  from  day  to  day.  Each  vessel  is  furnished  with  four  or  five 
light  boats,  according  to  their  size  and  number  ot  men,  each  boat 
requiring  two  men.  They  leave  the  vessel  early  in  the  morning, 
and  seek  the  best  or  sufficiently  good  spot  for  fishing,  which  is  fre 
quently  found  within  a  few  rods  of  their  vessels,  and  very  rarely 
more  than  one  or  two  miles  distant  from  them,  where  they  haul  the 
fish  as  fast  as  they  can  pull  their  lines,  and  sometimes  it  is  said  that 
the  fish  have  ]3een  so  abundant,  as  to  be  gaft  or  scooped  into  the 
boats,  without  even  a  hook  or  line  ;  and  the  fishermen  also  say  that 
the  cod  fish  have  been  known  to  pursue  the  capling  in  such  quan 
tities,  and  with  such  voracity,  as  to  run  in  large  numbers  quite  out 
of  water  on  to  the  shores.  The  boats  return  to  the  vessels  about 
nine  o'clock  in  the  morning,  at  breakfast,  put  their  fish  on  board, 
salt  and  split  them  ;  and  after  having  fished  several  days,  by  which 
time  the  salt  has  been  sufficiently  struck  in  the  fish  first  caught,  they 
carry  them  on  shore  and  spread  and  dry  them  on  the  rocks  or  tem 
porary  flakes.  This  routine  is  followed  every  day,  with  the  addi 
tion  of  attending  to  such  as  have  been  spread,  and  carrying  on  board 
and  stowing  away  those  that  have  become  sufficiently  cured,  until 
the  vessel  is  filled  with  dried  fish,  fit  for  an  immediate  market, 
which  is  generally  the  case  by  the  middle  or  last  of  August^  am'. 


with  which  she  then  proceeds  immediately  to  Europe,  or  returns 
to  the  United  States  ;  and  this  fish,  thus  caught  and  cured,  is  es 
teemed  the  best  that  is  brought  to  market,  and  ibr  several  years  pre 
vious  to  that  of  1808,  was  computed  to  furnish  three  fourth  parts  of 
all  the  dried  fish  exported  trom  the  United  States.     This  fishery 
was  also  about  that  time  taking  a  new  form,  which  would  have  had 
a  double  advantage,  both  in  point  of  profit  and  extension  ;  for  some 
of  our  merchants  were  beginning  to  send  their  large  vessels  to  the 
Labrador  Coast,  and  its  vicinity,  to  receive  there,  from  small  fishing 
boats  they  employed  or  purchased  from,  cured  fish,  to  load  their 
vessels  with  immediately  for  Europe,  thus  saving  so  great  an  ex 
pense  in  getting  the  fish  to  market  abroad,  as  would  in  a  short  tiirn* 
have  given  our  merchants  a  command  of  the   European  markets, 
and  would  have  also  afforded  an  encouragement  to  a  small  but  very 
numerous  boat  fishery,  which,  from  receiving  the  pay  for  their  la?- 
hour  on  the  spot,  could  not  fail  to  have  been  greatly  excited  and  in 
creased,   and  enabling  the  persons  concerned  in   the  exportation 
from  the  coast,  to  receive  at  home  the  proceeds  of  their  adventures 
from  abroad,  about  as  early  as  the  bank  fish  could  have  been  put 
into  a  state  fit  to  he  exported  from  the  United  States  ;  in  addition  to 
which,  we  were  prosecuting  a  very  productive  salmon  and  inacka- 
rel  fishery,  in  the  same  vicinity,  as  most  of  the  pickled  fish  we  had 
received  for  some  years  prior  to  the  war  were  caught  on  those 
shores. 

"  This  Coast  Fishery,  then,  most  highly  important  and  invaluable 
as  I  think  it  must  be  admitted  to  be,  even  from  the  foregoing  hasty  and 
imperfect  sketch  of  it,  merits  every  possible  degree  of  attention  and 
effort  for  its  preservation  on  the  part  of  the  government  of  the 
United  States.  The  refusal  of  the  British  commissioners  to  re 
new  or  recognise  the  stipulation  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  respecting 
it,  and  the  notification,  I  hope  not  formally  given,  that  it  would  not 
hereafter  be  permitted  without  an  equivalent,  are  alarming  indica 
tions  in  reference  to  the  future  peaceable  prosecution  of  this  fish 
ery,  and  of  the  dispositions  of  the  British  government  with  regard 
to  it. 

"  The  difference  of  expression  used  in  the  third  article  of  the 
treaty  of  peace  of  1783,  as  to  the  right  of  fishing  on  the  Banks  of 
Newfoundland,  and  the  liberty  of  fishing  on  the  coasts  of  the  Bri 
tish  provinces  in  North  America,  however  it  might  have  originated, 
affords  a  diversity  of  expression  which,  in  the  present  instance, 
will  be  seized,  and  be  made  to  give  the  partizans  of  Great  Britain 
and  of  the  provinces  a  popular  colour  of  justice  in  support  of  their 
arguments,  when  they  contend,  as  I  think  they  probably  will  do, 
that  in  so  important  a  compact  the  variance  of  language  could  not 
have  been  a  matter  of  accident ;  that  if  precision  in  the  use  of 
terms  in  their  most  literal  sense  is  any  where  to  be  expected,  it  is 
rertainly  to  be  looked  for  in  an  instrument  which  is  to  form  the 
paramount  law  between  two  nations,  whose  clashing  interests  have 
brought  them  into  collision ^  and  which  is  generally  framed  by  men 


216 

of  the  most  distinguished  talents  of  each  party,  the  acutetiess  of 
whose  conceptions  is  always  kept  in  full  play  by  the  contending 
pretensions  they  have  respectively  to  consult  and  sustain  ;  and  that 
therefore  a  distinction  was  made,  and  was  intended  to  be  made,  at 
the  time  of  the  negotiation  between  a  right  derived  from  the  God 
of  nature,  and  to  be  exercised  on  the  common  field  of  his  bounty,  the 
great  high- way  of  nations;  and  the  liberty,  permission,  or  indulgence,, 
as  they  will  term  it,  to  continue  the  exercise  of  an  employment  on 
the  coast  at  the  very  doors,  and  within  the  peculiar  and  especial 
jurisdiction,  ot  another  nation  :  the  one  according  to  this  doctrine 
being  a  right  inherent  and  not  to  be  drawn  in  question,  the  other 
a  sufferance  open  to  modification  or  denial  altogether  subsequently 
to  a  war,  according  to  the  will  or  the  interests  of  the  party  origin 
ally  acceding  to  it. 

"  The  liberty,  for  the  expression  of  the  treaty  in  the  discussion 
between  the  two  nations  must  be  admitted,  whether  it  operate  ad 
versely  or  favourably  to  us,  rests  for  its  own  continuance  either  as 
we  assert  on  the  ground  of  right  as  an  anterior  possession  and  a 
perpetual  franchise,  or  as  the  British  will  contend  on  the  existence 
of  the  treaty  of  1783.  The  first  ground  to  be  supported  on  the 
view  taken  of  it  in  your  own  letter  and  in  that  which  you  had  the 
goodness  to  communicate  to  me,  and  even  on  the  second,  admitting 
pro  forma  that  a  declaration  of  war  does  ipso  facto  abrogate  all 
previous  treaty  stipulations  brought  into  contest  by  it,  unless  tacitly 
or  expressly  renewed  by  a  new  treaty  to  be  an  acknowledged  prin 
ciple  of  international  law,  still  the  right  in  question  could,  1  be 
lieve,  rest  untouched  and  unaffected,  although  I  know  not  with 
what  degree  of  decision  or  determination  the  negation  of  a  future 
use  of  the  coast  fisheries  was  brought  forward  in  the  negotiations 
at  Ghent  by  the  British  commissioners.  But  while  on  the  one 
hand  the  coupling  the  offer  to  treat  for  a  renewal  of  the  liberty  of 
the  coast  fisheries  for  an  equivalent  with  a  proposition  to  treat  for 
a  renewal  of  the  right  of  the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi, 
also  for  an  equivalent,  unless,  as  has  been  suspected,  they  were 
made  with  the  insidious  purpose  of  obtaining  an  admission  that  both 
had  already  ceased  to  exist,  shows  the  confidence  they  would  wish 
to  appear  to  entertain  in  the  soundness  of  their  position,  that  the 
war  had  extinguished  both  the  right  and  the  liberty  ;  forthe  former, 
the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  if  force  of  language  and  repe 
tition  are  to  have  any  weight,  could  not  well  have  been  placed  on  a 
stronger  basis,  it  being  very  expressly  and  explicitly  contracted  for 
in  the  treaty  of  1783,  recognised  in  that  of  1794,  and  again  men 
tioned  in  a  provisional  article  in  1796,  still  on  the  other  hand,  the 
omission  in  the  new  treaty  to  state  that  the  treaty  of  1783  had  ex 
pired  or  been  annulled,  and  a  reference  having  been  made  to  it  ii> 
several  instances,  is  a  yet  stronger  evidence  that  they  did  consider 
that  treaty  as  remaining  in  existence  and  of  consequence,  entitled 
to  respect  and  observance  in  all  such  of  its  provisions  as  had  not 
been  specially  contravened  in  the  new  treaty- 


217 

"  A  liberty  was  recognised  by  the  treaty  of  1783,  for  the  inha-1 
bitants  of  the  United  States  to  prosecute  the  fisheries  on  the  coasts 
of  British  Nortli  America,  with  the  exception  of  the  island  of 
Newfoundland,  not  only  where  the  parties  had  been  accustomed  to 
use  them,  but  where  British  fishermen  not  only  did  but  might 
thereafter  (that  is  subsequently  to  the  date  of  the  treaty)  prose 
cute  them,  and  this  right,  for  it  had  now  become  a  right  of  liberty 
or  use,  demanded  by  the  one  party  and  admitted  and  acknowledged 
by  the  other,  was  wholly  without  limits  as  to  its  duration,  and 
could  then  only  cease  or  the  limitation  take  effect  on  the  happening 
of  one  of  three  events,  that  is,  the  surrender  of  the  party  possess 
ing  the  right  and  the  annulment  of  the  treaty  which  confirmed  it, 
or  by  an  usurped  and  unjustifiable  exercise  of  power  on  the  one 
part  in  defiance  of  the  rights  of  the  other,  and  in  violation  of  those 
common  principles  of  good  faith  which  can  alone  regulate  the  in 
tercourse  between  nations  ;  but  the  surrender  of  the  right  has  not 
been  made  by  the  United  States,  and  the  treaty  of  1783  has  not 
been  annihilated  by  the  existence  of  the  war,  because  the  parties 
have  not  only  not  agreed  to  abrogate  it,  but  have  expressly  refer 
red  to  it,  and  in  the  treaty  of  Ghent  made  a  provision  to  carry  the 
stipulations  as  to  boundaries  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  more  fully  and 
completely  into  effect :  now  it  being  an  uncontroverted  principle 
of  the  law  of  evidence,  that  the  whole  must  be  admitted  if  a  part 
is  received,  unless  some  reciprocal  and  mutual  agreement  exists  td 
the  contrary,  and  as  no  such  stipulation  does  exist  in  the  present 
case,  the  treaty  of  1783,  is,  as  I  should  contend,  even  by  the  show 
ing  of  the  British  commissioners  themselves,  still  in  existence, 
with  all  the  rights  and  liberties  incident  to  it,  with  the  full  and  free 
use  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  United  States  of  the  fisheries,  as  for 
merly  recognised  and  secured  to  the  United  States  by  that  treaty, 

"This  is  the  construction,  whether  to  be  supported  on  this 
ground  or  any  other,  which  I  hope  the  government  of  our  country 
will  maintain.  It  is  a  right  most  highly  important  to  the  eastern 
section,  and,  indeed,  to  the  present  and  future  naval  and  commercial 
power  of  the  United  States  ;  and  should  the  British  ministry  or  the 
colonial  authorities  attempt  to  interdict  this  fishery,  as  I  think  they 
now  will,  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  United  States,  the  government 
ought,  and  I  trust  will,  take  the  most  prompt  and  effectual  measures 
to  obtain  and  enforce  a  renewal  or  recognition  of  this  right  as  it  has 
heretofore  existed.  It  is  a  gem  which  should  never  be  surrendered, 
nor  can  it  ever  be  abandoned  by  any  statesman,  alive  to  the  inter 
ests  ot  his  country  :  compared  in  its  consequences  with  a  free  right; 
of  navigating  the  Mississippi,  it  is  even  a  much  more  unequal  stake 
than  would  be  "  six  French  rapiers  imponed  against  six  Barbary 
horses." 

"  The  right  of  navigating  the  Mississippi,  since  the  acquisition 
of  Louisiana  and  the  possession  of  both  sides  of  the  river  by  the 
United  States,  and  when  the  difficulties  of  the  ascending  naviga 
tion  are  considered,  and  the  jealousy  and  inconvenience  which  the 


218 

subjects  of  Great  Britain  must  experience  from  attempting  to  avail 
of  it,  can  be  of  little  value  to  her,  except  as  in  its  higher  branches 
and  on  the  Missouri,  it  may  facilitate  the  prosecution  of  the  fur 
trade.  This  trade,  however,  although  it  employs  a  large  number 
of  persons,  never  has  been  very  important  to  the  nation,  and  must 
from  the  operation  of  unavoidable  causes,  gradually  lessen,  and  in 
the  course  of  a  few  years  probably  recede  altogether  from  the 
great  rivers.  She  has,  therefore,  notwithstanding  the  opinion  of 
two  of  the  American  commissioners  and  her  own  probable  preten 
sions  of  fairness  given  up  nothing  in  point  of  value  compared  with 
the  fisheries,  which,  upon  the  same  ground,  she  is  undoubtedly  de 
sirous  of  fortifying  herself  in  withholding. 

"  In  compliance  with  the  intimation  you  had  given  me,  1  have 
commented  on  this  subject  at  much  greater  length  even  than  I  had 
contemplated  at  the  outset,  perhaps,  too  minutely  when  I  recollect 
that  a  part  of  it  at  least  must  be  much  better  understood  at  Qiiincy 
than  by  myself,  but  the  account  of  the  recent  state  of  these  fish 
eries  and  the  mode  in  which  they  were  prosecuted,  I  thought  might 
not  be  unacceptable  to  you.  My  information  with  regard  to  them, 
has  in  general  been  derived  from  respectable  sources  upon  which 
I  can  rely,  never  having  had  any  direct  interest  or  concern  in 
the  fisheries  myself.  I  have  not  attempted  to  apply  the  principles 
of  public  law  to  the  question  respecting  them,  because  the  few 
books  of  this  description  which  I  possess,  are  still  at  Washington  ; 
and  since  the  rising  of  the  council,  I  have  not  had  time  to  make  any 
research  elsewhere,  and  because  I  presume  this  part  of  the  busi 
ness  will  be  placed  under  the  hands  of  those  who  will  have  both 
the  means  and  the  ability  to  do  it  ample  justice. 

"  I  had  intended  also  in  reference  to  the  treaty  of  1314,  to  have 
made  some  few  remarks  upon  the  interdiction  it  may  occasion,  of  a 
trade  between  the  United  States  and  the  British  ports  in  India,  and 
on  its  operation  upon  the  contested  boundary  on  our  North  Eastern 
frontier,  so  far  as  regards  the  right  of  possession  to  the  Islands  of 
Dudley,  Moose,  and  Frederick,  in  the  Bay  of  Passamaquoddy.  I 
have,  however,  already  so  unduly  trespassed  on  your  patience,  that 
f  will  only  not  omit  them  altogether.  Both  these  objects  attach 
to  them  some  importance,  but  compared  in  point  of  value  with  the 
possession  of  the  fisheries,  perhaps  in  a  ratio  not  much  greater 
than  the  bullion  in  the  mint  at  Philadelphia  would  be  to  the  ore  in 
the  mines  of  Peru. 

*'  Feeling  persuaded  that  in  avowing  the  hope  that  all  these  ob 
jects  may  be  disposed  of  in  such  a  manner  as  best  to  confirm  the 
rights  and  secure  the  interests  of  the  United  States,  I  shall  unite 
fully  in  sentiment  with  yourself. 

"  I  have  the  honour  to  remain,  sir,  with  great  consideration,  your 
very  respectful  and  obedient  servant, 

"  JAMES  LLOYD." 


219 

The  following  letter  from  a  very  respectable  merchant,  con- 
crncd  himself  in  the  fisheries,  contains  further  interesting  de 
tails— 

Boston,  May  20th,  1815. 

"  Dear  sir  :  Argeeably  to  your  request  to  me,  1  have  endeavour 
ed  to  obtain  every  information  in  my  power  relative  to  our  fisheries 
in  this  and  the  neighbouring  States,  with  their  tonnage,  number  of 
men  employed,  quantity  of  fish  caught,  quantity  of  salt  used, 
and  the  probable  price  they  averaged  at  foreign  markets.  As  I 
was  not  acquainted  with  this  business  before  our  revolutionary  war, 
(  shall  endeavour  to  give  you  a  statement  from  the  year  1790  to 
1810  ;  to  some  my  account  may  appear  large  or  much  exaggerated; 
but  I  have  conversed  with  several  gentlemen  who  have  been  large 
ly  concerned  in  the  business,  and  two  of  them  took  much  pains 
1o  ascertain  the  number,  etc.  some  time  since  ;  and  I  find  they  go 
far  beyond  me  ;  but  1  shall  endeavour  to  give  you  as  correct  a  state 
ment  as  I  can,  and  wish  it  may  prove  satisfactory  to  you. 

"  Your  humble  servant." 

"My  calculation  is,  that  there  were  employed  in  the  Bank,  La- 
brador,  and  Bay  fisheries,  the  years  above  mentioned,  1232  vessels 
yearly,  viz.  584  to  the  Banks,  and  648  to  the  Bay  and  Labrador.  I 
think  the  584  Bankers  may  be  put  down  36, 540  tons,  navigated  by 
4,627  men  and  boys,  (each  vessel  carrying  one  boy,)  they  take  and 
cure,  annually,  510,700  quintals  offish  ;  they  average  about  three 
fares  a  year,  consume,  annually,  81,170  hhds.  salt,  the  average  cost 
of  these  vessels  is  about  $  2,000  each  ;  the  average  price  of  these 
fish  at  foreign  markets  is  $  6  per  quintal  ;  these  vessels  also  make 
from  their  fish,  annually,  17,520  barrels  of  oil,  which  commands 
about  $  10  per  barrel,  their  equipments  cost  about  $  900,  annually, 
exclusive  of  salt. 

"  The  648  vessels  that  fish  at  the  Labrador  and  Bay,  I  put  down 
48,600  tons,  navigated  by  5,832  men  and  boys  ;  they  take  and  cure, 
annually,  648,000  quintals  of  fish  ;  they  go  but  one  fare  a  year  ; 
consume,  annually,  97,200  hhds.  of  salt.  The  average  cost  of  these 
vessels  is  about  g  1600  ;  the  cost  of  their  equipments,  provisions, 
etc.  is  1050  dollars  :  those  descriptions  of  vessels  are  not  so  valu 
able  as  the  bankers,  more  particularly  those  that  go  from  the  Dis 
trict  of  Maine,  Connecticut,  and  Rhode-Island,  as  they  are  mostly 
sloops  of  no  very  great  value  ;  most  of  these  vessels  cure  a  part 
of  their  fish  where  they  catch  them,  on  the  beach,  rocks,  etc.  and 
the  rest  after  they  return  home  ;  several  cargoes  of  dry  fish  are 
shipped  yearly  from  the  Labrador  direct  for  Europe.  The  usual 
markets  for  those  fish  are  in  the  Mediterranean,  say  Alicant,  Leg 
horn,  Naples,  Marseilles,  etc.  as  those  markets  prefer  small  fish/ 
and  the  greatest  part  of  the  fish  caught  up  the  bay  and  Labrador 
are  very  small.  The  average  price  of  these  fish  at  the  market 
'hey  are  disposed  of  i«=  $5  :  th<??e  ves^ds  also  rr>3ke  from  thr-ir  fish 


220 

about  20,000  bbls.  of  oil,  which  always  meets  a  ready  sale  arid  at 
handsome  prices,  say  from  $  8  to  $  12  per  barrel,  the  most  of  it  is 
consumed  in  the  United  States. 

<l  1232  vessels  employed  in  the  Bank,  Bay,  and  Labrador  fisheries, 
measuring  Tons,  85,140 

Number  of  men  they  a^e  navigated  by,       10,459 
Number  of  hhds.  salt  th"y  consume,          178.370  hhds. 
Quantity  of  fish  they  take  and  cure,        1,1 5ft, 700  quintals. 
Barrels  of  oil  they  make,  37,520  barrels. 

"  There  are  also  a  description  of  vessels  called  jiggers  or  small 
schooners  of  about  from  30  to  45  tons  that  fish  in  the  South  Chan 
nel,  on  the  Shoals  and  Cape  Sables,  their  number  300,  they  carry 
about  4  or  5  hands,  say  1200  men,  and  take  about  75,000  qtls.  of 
fish,  annually  ;  consume  12,000  hhds.  of  salt,  and  make  about  4,000 
barrels  of  oil  ;  their  fish  is  generally  sold  for  the  West  Indies  and 
home  consumption. 

"  There  are  another  description  of  fishing  vessels  commonly  cal 
led  Chebacco  Boats  or  Pink  Sterns  ;  their  number  600  ;  they  are 
from  10  to  28  tons,  and  carry  two  men  and  one  boy  each,  say  1,800 
hands  ;  they  consume  15,000  hhds.  of  salt,  and  take  and  cure 
120,000  quintals  of  fish,  annually.  These  fish  also  are  wholly 
used  for  home  and  West  India  market,  except  the  very  first  they 
take  early  in  the  spring,  which  are  very  nice  indeed,  and  are  sent 
to  the  Bilbao  market,  in  Spain,  where  they  always  bring  a  great 
price  ;  they  make  9,000  barrels  of  oil ;  these  vessels  measure  abom. 
10,800  tons. 

"  There  are  also  about  200  schooners  employed  in  the  mackerel 
fishery,  measuring  8,000  tons,  they  carry  l,tiOO  men  and  boys,  they 
take  50,000  barrels,  annually,  and  consume  6,000  hhds  salt. 

"  The  alewive,  shad,  salmon,  and  herring  fishery  is  also  immense, 
and  consumes  a  great  quantity  of  salt. 

f%  Whole  number  of  fishing  vessels  of  all  descriptions  2,332 
Measuring  Tons,   115,940 

Number  of  men  navigated  by,  15,059 

Salt  they  consume,  265,370  hhds. 

Quantity  of  fish  they  take  and  cure,       1,353,700  quintals. 
Number  of  barrels  of  oil,  50,520  barrels. 

Number  of  barrels  of  mackerel,  50,000  barrels, 

"  There  are  many  gentlemen  assert,  and  roundly  too,  that  one 
year  there  were  at  the  Labrador  and  Bay,  over  1,700  sail  beside 
the  bankers  ;  but  I  feel  very  confident  they  are  much  mistaken,  it 
is  impossible  it  can  be  correct." 

These  papers  will  suffice  to  show  what  reliance  is  to  be  placed 
on  that  information  concerning  the  value  of  the  fishing  liberties,  as 
they  had  been  enjoyed  by  the  people  of  the  United  States  from 
the  peace  of  1783,  to  the  war  of  1812,  which  Mr.  Russell  in  his 
letter  from  Paris,  of  llth  February,  1815,  says  is  the  best  infor 
mation  he  can  obtain  ;  but  which,  in  the  duplicate  of  1822,  he  di- 


221 

lates  into  the  best  information  which  he  and  his  colleagues  at  Ghent 
could  obtain,  and  thus  represents  as  the  information  upon  which 
they  as  well  as  he  had  acted.  It  may  be  proper  to  refer  also  to 
documents,  showing,  1.  The  extent  of  the  interest  in  the  fisheries 
of  which  the  British  government  intended  at  the  negotiation  of 
Ghent,  to  obtain  from  the  United  States  the  tacit  or  implied  surren 
der.  2.  The  value  of  this  interest  as  estimated,  by  British  autho 
rities. 

The  instructions  from  the  Secretary  of  State  to  the  American 
commissioners  at  Ghent,  commanding  them  in  no  event  to  surren 
der  the  fisheries,  but  if  such  surrender  should  be  insisted  on  to  break 
off  the  negotiation,  were  dated  the  24th  of  June,  1814.  By  a  singular 
and  fortunate  coincidence  of  events  they  were  received  on  the 
evening  of  the  8th  of  August,  the  very  day  upon  which  the  British 
plenipotentiaries  had  notified  to  us  the  intentions  of  their  govern 
ment  not  to  grant  the  liberties  in  the  North  American  fisheries, 
which,  as  they  stated,  had  been  granted  by  the  treaty  of  1783. 

In  the  6th  volume  of  Nile's  Register,  p.  239,  under  date  of  the 
llth  of  June,  1814,  there  is  a  memorial  of  the  merchants  and  prin 
cipal  resident  inhabitants  interested  in  the  trade  and  fisheries  of 
Newfoundland,  to  admiral  Keats,  who  had  been  some  time  governor 
of  that  island,  and  was  then  about  returning  to  England.  It  was 
dated  8th  November,  1813,  and  in  the  Register  was  preceded  by 
the  following  remarks,  which  serve  to  indicate  the  popular  feeling 
of  the  time. 

From  Niles's  Register  of  llth  June,  1814. — The  Fisheries. 

"  The  following  memorial  has  excited  considerable  interest,  par 
ticularly  in  the  eastern  States,  so  far  as  we  have  heard  of  its  pro 
mulgation,  I  cannot  doubt,  from  the  high  ground  assumed  by  Great 
Britain  since  her  victories  on  the  continent,  but  that  she  will  at 
tempt  to  exclude  us  from  the  fisheries  as  the  grand  nursery  of  her 
seamen,  etc.  This  opinion  is  strengthened  by  hosts  of  "  Extracts 
of  Letters  from  England"  Let  those  who  have  calculated  on  the 
"  magnanimity"  of  Great  Britain  look  to  it ;  those  who  have  ex 
pected  nothing  of  her  justice  "  are  blessed  for  they  shall  not  be 
disappointed." 

"  The  Boston  Centinel  says  this  memorial  is  alarmingly  interest 
ing.  It  was  borne  to  England  by  admiral  Keats^  the  late  governor 
of  Newfoundland,  who  has  promised  to  give  it  his  support." 

"  JVo  peace  without  the  fisheries"  has  begun  to  be  the  cry.  If pa 
triotism  has  failed,  we  are  pleased  to  see  that  interest  is  about  to 
unite  the  people  ;  and  I  am  very  much  mistaken  in  the  character 
of  the  '  middle'  and  '  south'  if  their  representatives  shall  for  a  mo 
ment  abandon  the  one  iota  of  the  rights  of  the  '  eastern'  population, 
however  perverse  it  naay  have  been  to  the  views  of  an  immen^ 
majority  of  our  citizens.  If  we  *  pull  together''  all  will  be  well. 

28 


222 

Extracts  from  the  Memorial  of  the  Newfoundland  Merchants  to  Admiral  Kea!?? 
8th  Nov.  1813. 

"  Conceiving  that  our  existence  as  a  great  and  independent  nation 
must  chiefly  depend  upon  our  preserving  the  sovereignty  of  the 
seas,  the  policy  of  excluding  France  and  America  from  the  advan 
tages  those  nations  have  heretofore  enjoyed  in  the  times  of  peace, 
in  this  fishery,  must  be  evident  to  every  man  of  observation  en 
gaged  in  this  branch  of  commerce. 

**  By  former  treaties  with  France  and  the  United  States  of  Ame- 
rica*  these  powers  were  allowed  certain  privileges  on  those  shores, 
banks,  coast  of  Labrador,  and  in  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  in  the 
opinion  of  your  excellency's  memorialists  highly  impolitic,  and 
which  the  wisdom  of  the  British  government  never  would  concede 
except  under  very  peculiar  circumstances. 

"  Fifteen  hundred  American  vessels  have  been  known  to  be 
prosecuting  the  fishery  at  one  time  on  the  Labrador  coast,  bringing 
with  them  coffee,  teas,  spirits  and  other  articles  of  contraband. 

"  The  intercourse  of  our  fishermen  with  these  secret  enemies 
of  Britain,  has  an  effect  not  less  fatal  to  their  moral  character  than 
to  our  fishery.  The  small  planters  and  catchers  of  fish  which 
make  the  great  body  of  the  people  on  the  coast  of  Labrador  under 
the  influence  of  notions  imbibed  by  their  daily  intercourse  with 
men  whose  interests  are  at  war  with  ours,  become  dissatisfied  with 
their  supplying  merchants  who  are  unable  to  meet  their  foreign 
competitors  upon  equal  ground.  The  next  step,  as  experience 
shows,  is  the  neglect  of  the  only  means  in  their  power  to  discharge 
their  debts,  disobedience  and  insubordination  follow,  and  finally, 
their  minds  become  alienated  from  their  own  government,  and  they 
emigrate  to  another,  to  the  great  loss  of  their  country. 

"  In  times  of  peace,  besides,  the  citizens  of  the  United  State* 
resort,  in  great  numbers,  to  the  Banks,  where  they  anchor  in  vio 
lation  of  express  stipulations  to  the  great  annoyance  of  this  valua 
ble  branch  of  the  Newfoundland  trade.  Nor  is  it  possible  that  the 
strictest  vigilance  is  often  able  to  detect  them  in  the  breach  of  such 
stipulations. 

"  The  evils  growing  out  of  impolitic  concessions  to  insidious 
friends,  are  more  exteusive  than  your  excellency's  memorialists 
have  yet  stated  ;  they  accompany  our  commerce  into  the  markets 
of  Europe  and  the  West-Indies. 

"  In  the  United  States,  men,  provisions,  and  every  other  article 
of  outfit  are  procured  upon  much  better  terms  than  the  nature  of 
things  will  admit  with  the  British.  These  combined  advantages  en 
able  them  to  undersell  the  British  merchant  in  the  foreign  market. 
Hence  heavy  losses  have  often  by  him  been  sustained,  and  must 
always  be  sustained  under  similar  circumstances.  — 

'*  The  increased  advantages  since  the  commencement  of  hosti 
lities  with  America,  derived  to  both  our  import  and  export  trade, 
having  now  no  competitors  in  the  foreign  market^  and  what  is  of 


223 

the  last  and  highest  importance,  the  increase  of  our  means  to  make 
mariners,  while  those  of  our  enemies  must,  in  the  same  propor 
tion,  be  crippled,  show  the  wisdom  of  preserving  the  *  vantage 
ground'  we  now  stand  upon.  And  your  excellency's  memorialists 
feel  the  more  urgent  in  their  present  representation,  as  the  pros 
pects  which  happily  have  recently  opened  in  Europe,  may  afford 
a  well-grounded  hope  that  the  time  is  not  very  remote  when 
negotiations  may  be  opened  for  the  return  of  permanent  peace. 

"  From  the  protection  afforded  to  the  trade  of  this  island  by 
your  excellency,  as  well  as  by  his  excellency,  sir  John  B.  War 
ren,  a  great  number  of  fishing  vessels  have  gone  to  Labrador  from 
Nova-Scotia,  the  number  of  them  employed  on  the  Labrador  shores 
this  season  has  been  double,  and  the  absence  of  their  former  intru 
ders  has  enabled  them  to  fish  unmolested.  Your  excellency's  me 
morialists  beg  to  press  upon  your  serious  consideration,  of  which 
they  cannot  too  often  urge,  the  important  policy,  should  fortunately 
the  circumstances  of  Europe  ultimately  encourage  such  a  hope,  of 
wholly  excluding  foreigners  from  sharing  again  in  the  advantages 
of  fishing,  from  which  a  large  proportion  of  our  best  national  de 
fence  will  be  derived." 

The  following  extracts  from  Colquhoun's  Treatise  on  the  Wealth, 
Power,  and  Resources  of  the  British  empire,  further  illustrate  the 
views  of  the  British  government  in  relation  to  the  contested  fish 
eries  at  the  negotiation  of  Ghent,  and  the  value  of  these  fisheries. 
The  first  edition  of  Colquhoun's  work  was  published  on  the  20th 
of  July,  1814  ;  the  second  edition,  from  which  these  extracts  were 
made,  on  the  18th  of  April,  1815.  In  the  interval  between  these 
two  periods,  the  negotiation  at  Ghent  commenced  and  terminated, 
and  Mr.  Russell's  letter  from  Paris  was  written. 

Extracts  from  Colquhoun's  Treatise  on  the   Wealth,  Power,  and  Resources  01 
the  British  empire — 2d  edit.  1&15. 

"  The  value  of  these  fisheries  (of  the  British  colonies  in  North 
""•  America,)  to  the  parent  state,  will  be  more  obvious  after  the 
•'  lapse  of  20  or  30  years,  than  at  present.  Certain  it  is,  however, 
*'  that  their  value  is  beyond  all  calculation  :  and  their  preservation 
*£  as  a  part  of  the  British  empire,  is  of  the  most  vital  importance." 
— p.  16,  note.  See  also  p.  424. 

The  value  of  these  fisheries,  in  the  table  No.  8,  p.  36.  is  esti 
mated  at  £  7,550,000  sterling. 

"  New-Brunswick  and  Nova-Scotia,  from  being  both  watered  by 
"  the  Bay  of  Fundy,  enjoy  advantages  over  Canada,  which  more 
-'  than  compensate  a  greater  sterility  of  soil.  These  are  to  be 
*'  traced  to  the  valuable  and  extensive  fisheries  in  the  Bay  of  Fun- 
"'  dy,  which,  in  point  of  abundance  and  variety  of  the  finest  fish, 
"  exceed  all  calculation,  and  may  be  considered  as  a  mine  of  gold — 


224 

•'*  a  treasure  which  cannot  be  estimated  too  high,  since  with  little 
**  labour,  comparatively  speaking,  enough  could  be  obtained  to  feed 
•<  all  Europe."  pp.  312-313. 

"  Since  the  trade  with  the  United  States  has  been  so  greatly  ob- 
*'  structed,  the  produce  of  the  fisheries  in  the  British-colonies,  thus 
»'  encouraged  by  the  removal  of  all  competition,  has  been  greatly 
"  augmented  ;  and  nothing  but  a  more  extended  population  is  re- 
"  quired  to  carry  this  valuable  branch  of  trade  almost  to  any  given 
*'  extent. 

"  It  will  be  seen  by  a  reference  to  the  notes  in  the  table  annex- 
"  ed  to  this  chapter,  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  United  States  derive 
*'  incalculable  advantages,  and  employ  a  vast  number  of  men  and 
"  vessels  in  the  fishery  in  the  river  St.  Lawrence,  and  on  the  coast 
"  of  Nova  Scotia,  which  exclusively  belong  to  Great  Britain.  The 
"  dense  population  of  the  Northern  States,  and  their  local  situation 
"  in  the  vicinity  of  the  most  prolific  fishing  stations,  have  enabled 
"  them  to  acquire  vast  wealth  by  the  indulgence  of  this  country.'* 
p.  313. 

"  It  ought  ever  to  be  kept  in  view,  that  (with  the  exception  of  the 
"  small  islands  of  St.  Pierre  and  Miguelon,  restored  to  France  by. 
"  the  treaty  of  Paris,  in  May,  1814,)  the  whole  of  the  most  valua- 
"  ble  fisheries  in  North  America  exclusively  belong  at  this  present 
<l  time  to  the  British  crown,  which  gives  to  this  country  a  monopoly 
"  in  all  the  markets  in  Europe  and  the  West  Indies,  or  a  right  to  a 
"  certain  valuable  consideration  from  all  foreign  nations,  to  whom 
"  the  British  government  may  concede  the  privilege  of  carrying  on 
"  a  fishery  in  these  seas."  p.  314. 

"{  Private  fisheries  are  a  source  of  great  profit  to  the  individuals, 
"  in  this  and  other  countries,  who  have  acquired  a  right  to  such 
t4  fisheries.  Why,  therefore,  should  not  the  united  kingdom  de- 
"  rive  a  similar  advantage  from  the  fisheries  it  possesses  within  the 
"  range  of  its  extessive  territories  in  North  America,  (perhaps  the 
l<  richest  and  most  prolific  in  the  world,)  by  declaring  every  ship 
44  and  vessel  liable  to  confiscation  which  should  presume  to  fish  in 
"  those  seas  without  previously  paying  a  tonnage  duty,  and  receiv- 
*'  ing  a  license  limited  to  a  certain  period  when  fish  may  be  caught, 
"  with  the  privilege  of  curing  such  fish  in  the  British/territories  ? 
*'  All  nations  to  have  an  equal  claim  to  such  licenses,  limited  to  cer- 
**  tain  stations,  but  to  permit  none  to  supply  the  British  West-In- 
•:  dies,  except  his  majesty's  subjects,  whether  resident  in  the  colo- 
"  nies  or  in  the  parent  state."  p.  315. 

(E.)     St.  John's  or  Prince  Edward's  Island. 

"  Fisheries. This  island  is  of  the  highest  importance  to  the 

"  united  kingdom.  Whether  the  possession  of  it  be  considered  with 
"  relation  to  the  Americans,  or  as  an  acquisition  of  a  great  maritime 
•'  power,  it  is  worthy  of  the  most  particular  attention  of  govern- 
fc*  ment.  Mr.  Stewart  has  justly  remarked,  in  his  account  of  thaf 

island,  (page  296,)  that  'the  fishery  carried  on,  from  the  Ame 


225 

"  rican  States,  in  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  for  some  years  past,  is 
"  very  extensive,  and  is  known  to  be  one  of  the  greatest  resources 
<e  of  the  wealth  of  the  Eastern  States,  from  which  about  2000 
"  schooners,  of  from  70  to  100  tons,  are  annually  sent  into  the  Gulf ; 
"  of  these,  about  1400  make  their  fish  in  the  Straits  of  Bellisle,  and 
"  on  the  Labrador  shore,  from  whence  what  is  intended  for  the 
"  European  market  is  shipped  off,  without  being  sent  to  their  own 
"  ports.  About  six  hundred  American  schooners  make  their  fares 
"  on  the  north  side  of  the  island,  and  often  make  two  trips  in  a  sea- 
"  son,  returning  with  full  cargoes  to  their  own  ports,  where  the  fish 
"  are  dried.  The  number  of  men  employed  in  this  fishery  is  esti- 
"  mated  at  between  fifteen  and  twenty  thousand,  and  the  profits  on 
"  it  are  known  to  be  very  great.  To  see  such  a  source  of  wealth 
•*  and  naval  power  on  our  own  coasts,  and  in  our  very  harbours, 
"  abandoned  to  the  Americans,  is  much  to  be  regretted;  and  would 
"  be  distressing,  were  it  not  that  the  means  of  re-occupying  the 
"  whole,  with  such  advantages  as  must  soon  preclude  all  competi- 
"  tion,  is  afforded  in  the  cultivation  and  settlement  of  Prince  Ed- 
"  ward's  Island."  pp.  318,  319. 

It  remains  only  to  notice  the  painful  and  invidious  industry  with 
which  Mr.  Russell  inculcates  the  doctrine,  that  because  the  direct 
and  immediate  interest  in  these  fisheries  was  confined  to  the  State 
of  Massachusetts,  they  were  therefore,  of  no  value,  either  as 
right,  or  possession,  to  the  rest  of  the  Union.  If  any  thing  could 
add  to  the  incorrect  moral  character  of  this  doctrine,  it  would  be 
the  claim  of  merit  for  enlarged  patriotism  and  more  than  disinter 
ested  virtue  in  maintaining  it.  When  imputing  to  the  majority  of 
the  Ghent  mission,  the  phantom  of  his  own  fancy,  by  assuming  that 
they  had  rested  a  right  to  the  fisheries  upon  prescription,  among  his 
battering  rams  against  this  wind-mill,  is  the  argument  that  the 
United  States,  including  their  new  acquisition  of  Louisiana,  could 
not  claim  by  prescription,  a  right  which  had  been  exercised  only  by 
the  people  of  Massachusetts.  The  essence  of  this  enlarged  patriot 
ic  sentiment  is,  that  a  possession  or  liberty,  the  enjoyment  or  exer 
cise  of  which  is,  from  local  causes,  confined  to  one  State,  is  not, 
and  cannot  be,  a  possession  or  liberty  of  the  whole  Union.  For 
suppose  prescription  had  been  our  only  title  to  this  liberty  ;  Mr. 
Russell's  argument  is,  that  it  could  not  be  the  liberty  of  the  whole 
Union,  because,  if  it  were,  it  would  have  been  abrogated  by  the 
acquisition  of  Louisiana  ;  and  the  point  where  this  profound  inves 
tigation  lands  him,  is,  to  use  his  own  words,  that  for  the  fishing  li 
berty  "  WE  ARE  CONSEQUENTLY  LEFT  WITHOUT  ANY  TITLE  TO  IT 

*'  WHATSOEVER."  This  was  the  last  result  of  his  enlarged  patriot 
ism  :  for,  as  to  the  insinuation  in  the  joint  letter  of  25th  Decem 
ber,  1814,  which  he  had  signed,  that  the  fishing  liberty  was  a  sti 
pulated  participation  of  territorial  jurisdiction,  for  necessary  pur- 
pOses  of  the  fishery,  reserved  by  the  United  States  in  the  treaty 
of  separation  between  the  two  nations  ;  this  pretension,  he  says, 


226 

however  lofty,  is  so  inconsistent  with  the  circumstances  of  the  case, 
and  with  any  sober  construction  which  can  be  given  to  that  treaty, 
that  he  desires  to  be  excused  from  seriously  examining  its  validity. 
From  this  contemptuous  reference  to  a  position  to  which  he  had 
subscribed  without  hinting  an  objection,  and  which  he  cannot  an 
swer,  would  not  one  imagine  that  the  treaty  of  1783  was  a  capitula 
tion  of  vanquished  subjects  at  the  feet  of  a  victorious  and  magnani 
mous  master  ?  Mr.  Russell's  spirit  of  independence,  like  his 
patriotism,  is  bold  and  intrepid  in  generalities,  pliant  and  submissive 
in  particulars.  He  gravely  tells  you,  that  until  the  Revolution,  the 
fishing  liberties  of  the  colonies  were  held  at  the  bare  pleasure  of 
the  crown.  He  is  so  anxious  for  the  repurchase  of  our  forfeited 
fishing  liberties,  that  he  is  willing  to  give  for  them  an  equivalent 
•wherever  it  maybe  found  ;  provided  always,  that  it  shall  not  be  the 
continuance  of  a  harmless  right  to  travel  upon  a  Western  highway. 
He  disclaims  all  pretension  to  a  liberty  of  his  country  stipulated  in 
a  treaty,  unless  as  a  gracious  temporary  donation  from  the  bounty  of 
his  Britannic  majesty,  which,  at  the  first  blast  of  war,  the  monarch 
had  rightfully  resumed  ;  and  although  he  has  signed  his  name  with 
his  colleagues  to  numerous  papers  claiming  it  as  a  permanent  stipu 
lated  right,  unalienable  but  by  our  own  renunciation,  and  in  no  wise 
held  at  the  will  of  the  British  king,  he  will  not  be  thought  so  simple 
as  to  have  believed  a  word  of  what  he  has  concurred  in  saying,  or 
to  have  imagined  that  at  the  treaty  of  1783,  the  situation  of  the  par 
ties  was  such  that  the  United  States  could  bargain  for  the  fishing 
liberties,  or  receive  them  otherwise  than  as  precarious  and  tempo 
rary  grants,  resumable  at  the  will  of  the  grantor,  so  as  to  leave  us 
"  without  any  title  to  them  whatsoever"  Was  Mr.  Russell  ignorant, 
that  through  a  large  portion  of  the  Revolutionary  war,  it  was  a  de 
liberate  and  determined  purpose  of  Congress  that  the  United  States 
should  include  the  northern  British  provinces  ?  That  express  pro 
vision  for  the  admission  of  Canada  into  the  Union,  was  made,  in  the 
Confederation  of  1781  ?  That,  finally,  when  Congress  prescribed 
the  boundary  line,  which,  for  the  sake  of  peace,  they  would  ac 
cept,  and  which  was  that  stipulated  in  the  treaty,  they  passed  va 
rious  resolutions,  declaring  the  rights  of  the  United  States  in  the 
fisheries,  and  the  necessity  of  stipulating  for  them,  if  possible,  by 
the  treaty  ;  but  that  under  no  circumstances,  whatever,  were  they 
to  be  given  up  ?  That  in  all  the  deliberations  of  Congress  the  ne 
cessity  of  this  reservation  was  avowedly  connected  with  the  aban 
donment  of  the  pretension  to  include  all  the  northern  provinces  in 
the  Confederation  ?  That  the  terms  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  or  ra 
ther  of  the  preliminaries  of  1782,  which  were  word  for  word  the 
same,  were  almost  entirely  dictated  by  the  United  States  ?  That 
this  very  third  article,  securing  the  fisheries,  and  that  very  portion 
of  it  stipulating  for  the  liberty  within  British  jurisdiction,  was  made 
a  sine  qua  non,  by  the  American  commissioners,  two  of  whom  ex 
pressly  declared  that  they  would  not  sign  the  treaty  without  it  ?  and 
1.o  solve  Mr.  Russell's  scruples,  whether  an  interest  of  the  State  of 


227 

Massachusetts  is  an  interest  of  the  whole  Union — that  one  of  those 
two  commissioners  was  a  citizen  of  South-Carolina  ?  If  Mr.  Rus 
sell  is  ignorant  of  all  this,  it  only  shows  his  jncompetency  to  give 
any  opinion  the  subject.  If  he  is  not,  with  what  colour  of  justice 
can  he  pretend,  from  the  relative  situation  of  the  parties  to  the 
treaty  of  1783,  that  the  pretension  of  having  reserved  the  fishing 
liberty  as  a  permanent  participation  of  jurisdiction,  while  abandon 
ing  the  claim  to  the  territory  itself,  was  a  vain-glorious  boast,  too 
ridiculous  to  deserve  an  answer  ? 

Mr.  Russell  does  not  leave  us,  however,  to  indirect  inferences, 
for  the  conclusion,  that  in  his  estimates,  a  great  interest  of  Massa» 
chusetts  was  of  none  to  the  rest  of  the  Union  ;  for  he  expressly 
says,  in  his  original  letter  of  llth  February,  1815,  and  in  his  se 
cond  revision  of  it,  published  in  the  National  Gazette  of  loth  May, 
that  the  people  of  the  whole  Western  Country,  the  "  unoffending 
"  citizens  of  an  immense  tract  of  territory,"  were  "  NOT  AT  ALL 
*'  benefited  by  the  fishing  privilege." 

In  the  revision  of  the  duplicatey  for  the  eye  of  the  House  of  Re 
presentatives,  and  of  the  nation,  made  in  1822,  this  passage  is  one 
of  those  which  appears  to  have  smitten  the  conscience  of  the  writ 
er  ;  for  in  that  version,  he  qualified  the  words  not  at  all,  by  adding 
to  them,  **  or  but  faintly ,"  so  that  it  reads,  "  the  unoffending  citi- 
*?  zens  of  an  immense  tract  of  territory,  not  at  all,  OR  BUT  FAINTLY, 
*:  benefited  by  the  fishing  privilege,"  but  then  again,  as  if  grudging 
even  this  concession  to  the  fishermen,  he  takes  care  in  the  same 
sentence  to  reduce  it  in  degree  as  much  as  he  enlarges  it  in  ex 
tent,  by  adding  to  his  "  doubtful  accommodation  of  a  few  fisher- 
"  men,"  the  words  "  annually  decreasing  in  number." 

It  was  not  so  that  the  patriots  and  sages  of  our  Revolution  were 
wont  to  reason  or  to  feel.  On  the  19th  of  June,  1779,  a  resolution 
was  moved  in  Congress,  by  Mr.  Gerry — *'  That  it  is  essential  to 
"  the  welfare  of  these  United  States,  that  the  inhabitants  thereof, 
"  at  the  expiration  of  the  war,  should  continue  to  enjoy  the  free 
"  and  undisturbed  exercise  of  their  common  right  to  fish  on  the 
;'  Banks  of  Newfoundland,  and  the  other  fishing  banks  and  seas  of 
"  North  America,  preserving  inviolate  the  treaties  between  France 
"  and  the  said  States." 

In  the  debate  upon  this  resolution,  a  motion  was  made  by  Mr. 
John  Dickinson,  to  insert  the  word  ALL,  before  "  these  United 
States,"  and  the  word  was  inserted  by  a  vote  of  ten  States  out  of 
twelve.  And  so,  on  the  24th  of  June,  the  resolution  passed — that 
it  was  essential  to  the  welfare  of  all  these  United  States,  that  they 
should  continue  to  enjoy  the  fisheries  after  the  war. 

It  is,  indeed,  only  upon  the  principle  that  an  interest  important  to 
one  section  of  the  Union,  is  and  ought  to  be  considered  and  sup 
ported  as  the  interest  of  the  whole,  that  a  right  of  excluding  British 
subjects  from  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  could  be  claimed  or 
contended  for,  as  the  interest  of  the  whole  Union.  It  is  an  interest, 
whether  great  or  small,  essentially  local,  am!  admitting  to  the  fullest 


228 

extent,  that  it  is,  nevertheless,  an  interest  of  the  whole  Union,  ! 
only  claim  that  other  interests,  alike  local  in  their  exercise,  should 
be  entitled  to  the  same  benefit.  If  the  gain  by  the  war,  of  a  right 
to  interdict  British  subjects  from  descending  the  Mississippi  river, 
had  been  to  the  people  of  the  West  an  object  of  profit  as  great  afe 
the  privation  of  the  fishing  liberties  by  the  same  war  would  have 
been  to  the  people  of  the  East  an  object  of  /oss,  the  interests,  as 
concerned  the  whole,  would  have  been  equally  balanced  ;  but  in 
asmuch  as  the  duty  of  preserving  possessions  already  and  before 
enjoyed,  is  paramount  to  that  of  making  new  acquisitions,  the  prin 
ciple  of  equity,  as  well  as  the  spirit  of  union,  would  have  dictated 
as  the  true  policy,  that  of  maintaining  both  interests  in  the  state  in 
which  they  had  been  before  the  war,  rather  than  that  of  sacrificing 
one  part  of  the  Union  for  the  profit  of  another. 

If  the  comparative  value  of  the  two  interests  had  been  as  dis 
proportionate  as  they  have  been  represented  by  Mr.  Russell,  and 
the  balance  of  value  had  been  on  the  side  to  which  he  assigns  it, 
still  the  question  of  right,  remaining  the  same,  the  small  interest  of 
the  East  could  not  with  justice  have  been  sacrificed  to  the  greater 
interest  of  the  West,  without  compensation.  For  although  the 
whole  Union  may  possess  the  power  of  preferring  the  interests  of 
the  many  to  those  of  the  few,  they  have  no  power  of  arbitrary  dis 
posal  over  the  liberties  of  the  smallest  portion  of  the  communitjs, 
if,  by  a  solemn  article  of  the  Constitution,  it  is  provided  that  the 
private  property  of  the  humblest  individual  shall  not  be  taken  for 
public  use,  without  just  compensation,  how  much  more  imperious 
is  the  prohibition  of  taking  away  the  scanty  and  hard-earned  live 
lihood  of  a  few  fishermen,  even  were  they  annually  decreasing  in 
number,  to  bestow  new  and  exclusive  benefits  upon  a  distant  portion 
of  population,  without  compensation  to  the  indigent,  without  conso 
lation  to  the  bereaved  sufferer. 


229 


CONCLUSION. 

THE  interests  of  the  West  are  the  interests  of  the  whole  Union — 
rand  so  are  the  interests  of  the  East; — and  let  the  statesmen  who 
are  the  servants  of  the  whole,  beware  of  setting  them  in  conflict 
with  each  other.     A  review  of  these  papers  will  show  that  the  in 
terest  really  at  stake  in  the  negotiation  of  Ghent,  a  deep  and  import 
ant  stake,  was  an  interest  of  the  East ;  that  there  was  wo  Western 
interest  affected  by  the  article  first  proposed  by  Mr.  Gallatin.  or  by 
the  amendment  finally  offered  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries  at  his 
proposal,  and  rejected  ;  that  the  only  plausible  objection  to  it,  rest 
ed  upon  a  gratuitous  assumption,  contrary  to  all  reason  and  expe 
rience,  that  it  would  have  given  a  right  of  access  to,  and  of  inter 
course  with,  our  Indians,  to  the  British.     This,  the  British    had 
possessed  by  another  article  of  another  treaty,  acknowledged  to  be 
extinguished  by  the  war — but  it  would  no  more  have  been  granted 
to  them,  by  a  right  to  navigate  the  Mississippi,  than   by  a  right  to 
enter  the  harbour  of  New- York.    The  whole  argument  rested  upon 
a  fallacy;  a  mis-statement  of  the  question.     Happy  would  it  have 
been  for  Mr.  Russell,  if,  after  assenting  and  pledging  his  signatures 
to  the  decision  of  the  majority,  he  had  as  cautiously  withheld  from 
his  government,  and  his  country,  the  allegation  of  his  reasons  for 
having  voted  against  it,  as  he  did  at  the  time  of  the  discussion,  from 
his  colleagues.     But,  in  the  vehemence  of  his  zeal  to  vindicate  his 
motives  for  one  unfortunate  vote  at  Ghent,  which  but  for  himself 
would  probably  never  have  been  known  to  the  world,  he  has  been 
necessitated  to  assert  principles  of  international  and  municipal  law, 
and  to  put  forth  statements  as  of  fact,  more  unsubstantial  than  the 
pageant  of  a  vision.     He  has  been  reduced  to  the  melancholy  office 
of  misrepresenting  the  subject  of  which  he  treats,  the  conduct  and 
sentiments  of  his  colleagues  in  a  great  national  trust  and  his  own. 
He  has  been  compelled  to  disavow  his  own  signatures,  to  contradict 
his  own  assertions,  and  to  charge  himself  with  his  own  interpola 
tions.     He  has  been  forced  to  enter  the  lists  as  the  champion  of  his 
country's  enemy,  upon  a  cause  which  he  had  been  specially  entrust 
ed  to  defend  and  maintain — to  allege  the  forfeiture  of  liberties  which 
he  had  been  specially  instructed  not  to  surrender — to  magnify  by 
boundless  exaggerations,  an  ideal,  and  to  depreciate  in  equal  pro 
portion,  a  real,  interest  of  his  country — to  profess  profound  re 
spect  for  the  integrity  and  talents  of  men,  while-secretly  denouncing 
their  conduct  as  treacherous  and  absurd — and,  finally,  to  traduce 
before  the  Representative  Assembly  of  the  nation,  the  character  of 
the  absent,  and  the  memory  of  the  dead. 

It  has  been  my  duty,  not  only  in  justice  to  my  own  character  and 
to  that  of  the  colleagues  with  whom  I  acted,  but  in  respectful  defe 
rence  to  the  opinion  of  that  nation  of  which  we  were,  and  two  of 
•is  still  are.  the  servants,  to  justifv  the  .conduct  thus  denounced  in 


230 

tiit,  lace  of  the  country— and  to  prove  that  the  letter  which  contain 
ed  that  denunciation  was  a  tissue  of  misrepresentations.  The  at 
tack  of  Mr.  Russell  was  at  first  secret — addressed  to  the  Execu 
tive  officer  of  the  administration,  at  the  head  of  the  department,  un 
der  whose  instructions  the  mission  at  Ghent  had  acted.  It  was 
made  under  the  veil  of  concealment,  and  in  the  form  of  a  private 
letter.  In  that  respect  it  had  failed  of  its  object.  It  had  neither 
made  the  Executive  a  convert  to  its  doctrines,  nor  impaired  his 
confidence  in  the  members  of  the  majority  at  Ghent.  Defeated  in 
this  purpose,  after  a  lapse  of  seven  years,  Mr.  Russell  is  persuaded 
to  believe  that  he  can  turn  his  letter  to  account,  especially  with  the 
aid  of  such  corrections  of  the  copy  in  possession  as  the  supposed  loss 
of  the  original  would  enable  him  to  make  without  detection,  by  bring 
ing  it  before  the  Legislative  Assembly  of  the  Union.  Foiled  in 
this  assault,  by  the  discovery  of  the  original,  he  steals  a  march  upon 
refutation  and  exposure,  by  publishing  a  second  variety  of  his  let 
ter,  in  a  newspaper  ;  and  when  the  day  of  retribution  comes,  dis 
closing  every  step  of  his  march  on  this  winding  stair,  he  turns  upon 
me,  with  the  charge  of  having,  by  the  use  of  disingenuous  artifices,  led 
him  unawares  into  the  disclosure  of  a  private  letter,  never  intended 
for  the  public,  and  seduced  him  to  present  as  a  duplicate,  what  he  had 
not  intended  to  exhibit  as  such.  To  this  new  separate  and  person 
al  charge,  I  have  replied,  by  proving  the  paper  which  contains  it 
to  be,  like  the  letter  from  Paris,  a  tissue  of  misrepresentations. — 
Cor  the  justification  of  myself,  and  of  my  colleagues  at  Ghent, 
nothing  further  was  necessary.  But  the  letter  of  Mr.  Russell  from 
Paris,  contains  doctrines  with  reference  to  law,  and  statements 
with  reference  to  facts,  involving  the  rights,  the  harmony,  and  the 
peace,  of  this  Union. 

*'  Dangerous  conceits  are  in  their  nature  poisons.™ 

If  the  doctrines  of  Mr.  Russell  are  true,  the  liberties  of  the  peo~ 
pie  of  the  United  States  in  the  Newfoundland,  Gulf  of  St.  Law 
rence,  and  Labrador  fisheries,  are  at  this  day  held  by  no  better 
tenure  than  the  pleasure  of  the  king  of  Great  Britain,  and  will  be 
abrogated  by  the  first  act  of  hostility  between  the  two  nations. 

If  his  statements  are  true,  those  liberties  are  the  mere  accommo 
dation  of  a  few  fishermen,  annually  decreasing  in  number,  too 
worthless  to  be  accounted  to  the  rest  of  the  nation  of  any  benefit 
at  all. 

If  his  statements  are  true,  the  propositions  made  by  the  Ameri 
can  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  on  the  1st  of  December,  1814, 
gave  unrestrained  and  undefined  access  for  the  British  to  the  Indians 
within  our  territories — laid  our  country  bare  to  swarms  of  British 
smugglers,  and  British  emissaries — and  exposed  the  unoffending 
citizens  of  an  immense  territory  to  all  the  horrors  of  savage  warfare. 

I  now  submit  to  the  deliberate  judgment  of  the  nation,  whether 
1  have  not  proved  that  these  doctrines  and  statements  are  equally 
and  utterly  without  foundation — That  the  rights  and  liberties  in  the 


231 

fisheries,  are  held  at  the  will,  not  of  the  king  of  Great  TVitain,  l"i 
of  the  people  of  the  United  States  themselves,  founded  upon  na 
tional  right,  unhroken  possession,  and  irrevocable  acknowledgment 
— That  their  value,  both  immediate  and  remote,  direct  and  conse 
quential,  is  immensely  important,  not, only  to  the  Commonwealth  of 
Massachusetts,  but  to  the  whole  Union — That  the  proposition  made 
to  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  on  the  1st  of  December,  13 M, 
would,  if  accepted,  have  given  to  the  British,  instead  of  an  unre 
strained  and  undefined  access  to  our  Indians,  no  access  to  them 
whatever — That  it  would  have  given  them  access,  even  to  the 
Mississippi  river,  only  from  a  single  spot  in  the  British  territories ; 
and  a  right  to  descend  the  river  only  with  merchandise  upon  which 
the  duties  should  have  been  paid,  and  subject  to  all  the  custom 
house  regulations. 

The  question  in  relation  to  the  Mississippi,  can  never  be  revived. 
That  spectre  is  forever  laid.  Great  Britain  has  not  only  disavowed 
the  claim  to  it  which  we  would  have  admitted  as  valid,  she  has 
abandoned  that  upon  which  she  herself  exclusively  rested  it.  Of 
its  value,  in  confirmation  of  the  opinions  which  I  have  expressed, 
1  have  given  extracts  from  the  debates  in  parliament,  on  the  peace 
of  1782,  which  show  how  it  was  estimated  by  her  greatest  states 
men  at  that  time.  Those  estimates  had  been  confirmed  by  an  ex 
perience  of  thirty  years.  The  slumbers  of  the  unoffending  citizens 
of  the  Western  Country,  can,  therefore,  never  more  be,  if  they 
ever  were,  disquieted  by  the  visits  of  this  apparition  to  the 
glimpses  of  the  moon.  But  the  day  may  come,  though  I  trust  it  is 
far  remote,  when  the  title  to  our  fishing  liberties  may  again  be  in 
peril  as  imminent  as  it  was  at  the  negotiation  of  Ghent.  And  if,  in 
that  day,  the  American  statesmen  who  may  be  charged  with  the  de 
fence  and  support  of  the  rights,  liberties,  and  interests  of  their 
country,  should  deem  it  among  the  qualifications  for  their  office  to 
possess  some  knowledge  of  the  laws  of  nations,  some  acquaintance 
with  the  history  of  their  country,  and  some  patriotism  more  com 
prehensive  than  party  spirit  or  sectional  prejudice  ever  gave  or 
ever  can  give,  I  trust  in  God  that  their  proficiency  will  have  led 
them  to  the  discovery,  that  all  treaties,  and  all  articles  of  treaties, 
and  all  liberties  recognised  in  treaties,  are  not  abrogated  by  war  ; 
that  our  fishing  liberties  were  neither  before  nor  since  the  Revolu 
tionary  war,  held  at  the  mere  pleasure  of  the  British  crown  ;  and 
that  the  lawful  interests  and  possessions  of  one  section  of  the  Union 
are  not  to  be  sacrified  for  the  imaginary  profit  of  another,  either  by 
disparaging  th;nr  value,  or  by  casting  them  away  as  the  interests  of 
••d  part  of  the  country. 


APPENDIX. 


1.  Western  Commentaries. 

In  the  remarks  upon  Mr.  Russell's  letter  and  duplicate,  which 
tvere  submitted  to  the  House  of  Representatives,  I  expressed  the 
most  unqualified  confidence  in  the  justice  of  the  West,  and  my  en 
tire  conviction  that  however  justly  the  inhabitants  of  that  portion 
of  the  Union  might  have  been  incensed  against  the  majority  of  the 
Ghent  mission,  upon  the  statements  and  representations  of  those 
letters,  yet  that  when  the  plain  unvarnished  tale  of  real  fact  should 
be  laid  before  them,  they  would  not  only  acquit  the  majority  of  any 
intended  sacrifice  of  their  interests,  but  would  find  in  the  measure 
itself,  distinctly  disclosed  to  them  in  its  own  nature,  nothing  to  dis 
approve.  In  every  part  of  this  Union,  when  the  whole  truth  can 
once  be  exhibited  to  the  people,  there  is  a  rectitude  of  public  opi 
nion  which  neither  individual  enmity,  local  prejudices,  nor  party 
rancour  can  withstand  or  control.  Upon  this  public  virtue  of  my 
country  I  have  ever  relied,  nor  has  it  now,  nor  ever  disappointed  me. 
I  have  the  satisfaction  of  knowing  from  various  sources  of  informa 
tion,  public  and  private,  that  the  general  sentiment  of  the  Western 
Country,  wherever  the  Remarks  as  well  as  the  Letters  have  been 
read,  has  done  justice  to  the  intentions  of  the  majority,  as  well  as 
to  the  motives  of  Mr.  Russell. 

Yet,  since  the  communication  of  his  Letters  to  the  House  of  Re 
presentatives,  the  uses  for  which  it  was  supposed  the  production 
of  them  was  intended,  and  to  which  they  were  adapted,  have 
not  been  altogether  abandoned  in  some  parts  of  the  Western 
Country.  The  St.  Louis  Enquirer  has  pursued  this  purpose,  in 
the  simplest  form,  by  publishing  the  message  of  the  President  of 
the  United  States  to  the  House  of  Representatives  of  7th  May  ; 
and  Mr.  Russell's  Private  letter,  and  by  suppressing  the  Duplicate 
and  the  Remarks. 

In  the  Kentucky  Reporter,  published  in  Lexington,  and  in  the 
Argus  of  Western  America,  published  at  Frankfort,  various  publi 
cations  have  appeared,  exhibiting  similar  views  of  the  subject,  re 
presenting  the  proposition  made  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries, 
on  the  1st  of  December.  1314,  as  a  very  grievous  offence,  and 
ascribing  it  exclusively  to  me.  The  subject  has,  however,  been 


233 

presented  in  a  manner  more  impartial,  in  the  Louisville  Public  Ad 
vertiser,  where,  among  other  things,  it  has  been  inquired  how,  if  the 
proposal  was  so  very  exceptionable  it  could,  under  any  circum 
stances  have  received  the  sanction  or  signature  of  Mr.  Clay  ? 

The  following  editorial  article  in  the  Frankfort  Argus,  of  18th 
July,  seems  intended  to  answer  that  question,  and  although  con 
taining  some  severe  strictures  upon  "  the  Secretary,"  mingles  with 
them  some  candid  admissions,  in  a  spirit  upon  which  I  would  with 
equal  candour  animadvert. 

From  the  Argus  of  Western  America,  Frankfort,  Kentucky,  18th  July,  1822. 

THE  GHENT  MISSION. 

"  Mr.  Penn  does  not  understand  the  circumstances  attending  the 
Ghent  negotiation,  or  he  wilfully  conceals  the  truth. 

''•  The  first  instructions  given  to  our  commissioners  were,  that 
they  should  noi  agree  to  any  stipulation  by  which  the  pre-existing 
right  of  British  subjects  to  trade  with  the  Indians  living  within  our 
territories,  should  be  revived.  The  object  of  this  instruction  was 
to  cut  off  the  means  of  British  influence  among  the  Indians,  which 
we  had  felt  so  fatally  in  that  war. 

"  While  acting  under  these  instructions,  it  was  proposed  by  Mr. 
Gallatin  to  offer  the  British  the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi, 
with  access  to  it  through  our  territories,  on  condition  that  the  liber 
ty  to  take  and  cure  fish  on  the  coast  within  the  exclusive  jurisdiction 
of  the  British  colonies,  should  be  continued  to  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States.  This  proposition  was  strenuously  opposed  by  Mr. 
Clay,  on  the  ground  that  it  would  give  the  British  those  very  means 
of  influence  over  the  Indians  of  which  it  was  the  object  of  the  go 
vernment  to  deprive  them,  as  evinced  by  their  instructions.  At 
first  Gallatin,  Adams,  and  Bayard,  were  favourable  to  the  proposi 
tion,  and  Clay  and  Russell  against  it.  In  the  end,  however,  Bayard 
changed  sides,  and  it  was  rejected.  Of  course,  no  such  proposition 
was  made  at  that  time. 

"  Subsequently,  however,  the  overthrow  of  Napoleon  having 
left  us  to  contend  single-handed  with  the  undivided  power  of  Great 
Britain,  our  government  thought  proper  to  change  the^  terms  ofler- 
ed  to  the  British  government,  and  accordingly  sent  additional  in 
structions  to  Ghent,  directing  our  commissioners  to  make  a  peace 
if  practicable,  upon  the  simple  condition,  that  each  party  should 
be  placed  in  the  same  situation  in  which  the  war  found  them. 

"  At  the  commencement  of  the  war,  the  British  had  a  right  by- 
treaty,  not  only  to  navigate  the  Mississippi,  but  to  trade  with  all 
our  western  Indians.  Of  course  our  commissioners  were  instructed 
to  consent  to  the  continuance  of  this  right,  if  no  better  terms  could 
be  procured.  Under  these  instructions  a  proposition  relative  to 
the  Mississippi  and  the  fisheries,  similar  to  that  which  had  been 
rejected,  was  again  presented,  adopted,  and  sent  to  the  British 
commissioners,  But  it  did  not  restore  the  right  to  navigate  the 


234 

Mississippi  in  as  lull  a  manner  as  the  British  government  <iesirecf, 
and  on  that  account,  we  presume,  was  rejected. 

a  Now  we  believe  the  truth  to  be,  that  Mr.  Clay  still  opposed 
this  proposition,  believing  that  it  never  ought  to  be  made  by  our 
government,  arid  perhaps  was  not  necessary  to  the  conclusion  of 
the  peace.  But  as  the  government  had  authorized  a  treaty  to  be 
made  on  the  status  ante  bellum,  and  as  the  proposition  amounted  to 
nothing  more,  he  did  not  refuse  to  sign  his  name  to  the  letter 
which  contained  not  only  that,  but  all  the  other  propositions  made 
in  the  treaty. 

"The  Secretary,  in  his  strictures,  confounds  together  the  dis 
cussions  which  took  place  before  and  after  the  reception  of  the 
additional  instructions,  by  which  means  more  discriminating  heads 
than  Penn's  have  been  deceived. 

44  The  commissioners  at  Ghent  assumed  the  principle,  that  the 
right  to  the  fisheries  in  British  waters,  on  our  side,  and  the  right  to 
navigate  the  [Mississippi,  on  their  side,  secured  by  the  treaty  of '83, 
were  not  abrogated  by  the  war,  but  continued  in  full  force  without 
any  new  stipulation  at 'the  peace.  The  Secretary  calls  this  the 
American  side  of  the  argument,  and  exults,  with  many  thanks  to 
God,  that  it  has  been  sustained  through  subsequent  negotiations, 
and  particularly  in  forming  the  convention  with  Great  Britain  in 
1818.  Surely  this  exultation  is  not  only  without  cause,  but  con 
trary  to  reason.  If  the  principle  so  strenuously  asserted  by  him 
be  correct,  what  have  we  gained  hy  it  ?  At  the  close  of  the  war 
our  right  to  the  fisheries  and  the  British  right  to  navigate  the  Mis- 
stssippi,  existed  to  the  full  extent  at  which  they  were  secured  by 
the  treaty  of  '83,  and  would  have  continued  so  to  exist  without  any 
additional  stipulation  until  this  moment.  But  the  convention  of 
1818,  restricts  our  fishing  liberties,  and  says  not  a  word  about  the 
navigation  of  the  Mississippi.  Hence,  if  the  Secretary's  position 
be  sound,  we  have  lost  by  it  a  part  of  our  fishing  liberties,  and 
the  British  retain  the  right  to  navigate  the  Mississippi  in  its  fullest 
extent !  How  can  the  Secretary  consistently  say,  that  they  abandon 
ed  this  right  in  the  convention  of  1818,  when  not  a  word  is  said 
about  it  in  that  compact  ?  If  he  were  President  and  the  British 
were  to  claim  the  right  to  navigate  the  Mississippi  to-morrow,  he 
would  be  obliged  to  grant  their  claim  valid  or  contradict  his  own, 
favourite  principle  !  !'7 

Remarks  on  the  A'oove  Editorial  Artkle, 

This  article  admits  that  Mr.  Clay  did  not  refuse  to  sign  his  name 
to  the  proposition  made  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries  on  the  1st 
of  December,  1814,  of  confirming  to  the  British  the  right  of  navi 
gating  the  Mississippi.  It  admits  that  the  proposition  was  fully 
warranted  by  the  instructions  of  19th  October,  1814,  and  formally 
assigns  them,  as  his  motive  for  not  refusing  his  assent  to  the  pro 
posul.  Jt  does,  indeed,  say  that  he  believed  the  proposition 


235 

r  ought  to  be  made  by  our  government,  and  perhaps  was  not 
necessary  to  the  conclusion  of  the  peace.  The  perhaps  it  was  not, 
of  course  implies  that  perhaps  it  was  necessary  to  the  conclu 
sion  of  the  peace,  and  in  candid  reasoning  is  of  itself  sufficient  to 
justify  the  majority  in  the  determination  to  make  the  proposal, 
which  they  did  believe  to  be  necessary. 

In  transferring  the  blame,  whatever  it  might  be,  of  making  the 
proposition,  from  the  majority  of  the  mission,  who  only  executed, 
to  the  government  which  issued  the  instructions,  under  which  Mr. 
Clay  did  not  refuse  his  signature,  a  new  field  of  argument  is  opened, 
not  very  reconcilcable  with  any  portion  of  Mr.  Russell's  papers 
on  this  subject.  Mr.  Russell's  duplicate  alleges  that  the  proposi 
tion  was  in  positive  and  wilful  violation  of  instructions,  explicit  and 
implicit.  Mr.  Russell  in  the  Boston  Statesman  of  27th  June  last, 
affirms  that  the  instructions  of  19th  October,  1814,  had  no  effect 
whatever  on  the  proposition  to  the  British. plenipotentiaries  of  1st 
December  ;  that  no  vote  in  the  mission  was  taken  after  the  in 
structions  of  19th  October  were  received — and  he  appeals  to  Mr, 
Clay  to  confirm  this  statement. 

It  is,  to  be  sure,  a  matter  of  opinion,  whether  the  government 
ought  to  have  given  the  instructions  of  19th  October,  1814,  or  not, 
upon  which  every  member  of  the  Ghent  mission,  individually, 
had  the  right  of  entertaining  his  own  opinion.  There  may  be  ex 
treme  cases  in  which  a  public  minister  would  be  justified  in  refus 
ing  his  signature  to  a  proposition  warranted  or  even  required  by 
die  instructions  of  his  government:  a  member  of  a  commission  may 
indulge  himself  in  this  regpect  with  a  much  greater  latitude  than  a 
single  plenipotentiary,  for  the  obvious  reason  that  the  instructions 
may  be  executed  without  his  assent.  Mr.  Clay,  therefore,  might 
have  withheld  his  signature  from  the  proposition  which  was  made 
on  the  1st  of  December,  1814,  as  he  had  said  he  should  withhold  it 
from  that  which  had  been  voted  on  the  5th  of  November.  The 
reason  assigned  in  the  editorial  article  of  the  Argus,  for  his  having 
taken  a  different  course,  namely,  the  receipt  in  the  interval  be 
tween  the  two  periods  of  the  new  instructions  from  the  government, 
is  amply  sufficient  to  justify  him  for  yielding  his  assent  at  last,  but 
in  candid  reasoning,  if  it  justified  him  in  pledging  his  signature  to 
a  measure  which  he  disapproved,  it  surely  more  than  justified  th^ 
majority,  in  determining  to  offer  a  proposition,  which  they  approv 
ed,  and  for  which  they  had  been  prepared  even  before  those  in 
structions  had  been  received. 

The  editorial  article  in  the  Argus,  admits,  in  amplest  form,  that 
at  the  commencement  of  the  war,  the  British  had  the  right  to  na 
vigate  the  Mississippi,  and  that  the  commissioners  were  instructed 
to  consent  to  the  continuance  of  this  right,  if  no  better  tern^ 
could  be  procured.  But  it  intimates  the  belief  of  Mr.  Clay,  that 
the  government  ought  never  to  have  issued  such  instructions.  Yet 
the  reason  stated  in  the  editorial  article  itself,  as  the  inducing  mo 
live  of  the  government  to  thi?  measure,  is  weighty,  and  whoever 


236 

will  duly  consider  the  situation  and  circumstances  of  this  nation  aoJ 
its  government,  in  October,  1814,  will,  I  believe,  not  be  very  ready 
to  join  in  a  censure  upon  the  government  for  offering  a  peace  on  the 
basis  of  the  state  before  the  war.  There  was  then  a  heavy  re 
sponsibility,  both  upon  the  government  and  upon  the  mission  at 
Ghent,  that  the  war  should  be  concluded.  This  nation  would  have 
ill-brooked  a  rupture  of  the  negotiation  upon  light  or  trivial  causes, 
and  if  it  had  been  broken  off  upon  a  refusal  to  continue  to  the  Bri 
tish  a  mere  nominal  nght  to  navigate  the  Mississippi,  possessed  by 
them  and  harmless  to  us  until  the  war  had  begun,  the  government 
and  the  mission  would  nave  had  a  very  different  task. to  justify 
themselves  to  this  country,  from  that  which  they  now  have.  If, 
instead  of  writing  his  letter  of  1 1th  February,  1815,  from  Paris. 
Mr.  Russell  had  brought  the  substance  of  it  home  in  his  pocket, 
with  the  war  still  raging,  and  he  had  said,  We  have  not  concluded 
the  peace — we  have  broken  off  the  negotiation — but  here  are  our 
reasons — producing  his  letter  of  seven  sheets  against  the  Mississip 
pi  navigation,  and  the  fisheries — What  would  the  nation  and  the 
world  have  said  of  the  American  government  and  the  American 
mission  at  Ghent  ?  After  the  responsibility  has  been  removed, 
and  the  peace  concluded,  it  is  very  easy  to  "  enjoy  the  good  and 
cavil  the  conditions" — but  in  this  case,  measure  still  harder  is  dealt, 
out  to  the  government  and  the  majority  of  the  mission  :  after  the 
good  is  secured,  the  cavil  is  against  conditions  not  annexed  to  it, 
but  merely  once  proposed — not  against  an  actual  stipulation,  but 
against  a  rejected  offer — against  a  possibility  extinct. 

It  is  sufficient  for  the  justification  of  the  majority  of  the  mission 
that  it  was  authorized,  and  that  they  believed  it  to  be  required  by 
their  instructions.  But  I  cannot  pass  over  this  censure  upon  the 
government  for  issuing  the  instructions  themselves,  without  notice. 
Far  from  deeming  them  blameable,  I  believe  them  to  have  been 
wise  and  meritorious.  The  instructions  not  to  surrender  the  fish 
eries,  even  at  the  hazard  of  breaking  off  the  negotiation,  mani 
fested  a  sensibility  congenial  to  the  true  and  essential  interests  of 
the  country.  I  have  in  these  papers  furnished  proof  that  the  in 
terest  in  the  fisheries  at  stake  in  the  negotiation,  was  great  and  im 
portant.  The  disquisitions  in  the  Western  newspapers  on  this 
subject,  dwell  largely  upon  the  state  of  politics  then  prevailing  in 
the  Eastern  section  of  the  Union.  This  is  an  invidious  topic,  and  I 
wish  to  dismiss  it,  with  this  observation,  that  the  administration  of 
Mr.  Madison  could  not  have  honoured  itself  more  than  by  maintain 
ing  with  inflexible  energy  against  the  enemy,  the  special  interest  of 
that  portion  of  the  Union  which  had  been  most  opposed  to  the  war. 
But  had  that  illustrious  statesman  and  patriot  suffered  himself  on 
that  occasion  to  be  influenced  by  narrower  considerations,  it  could 
not  escape  him,  that  however  exceptionable  the  political  course  of 
the  State  of  Massachusetts  might  be,  the  portion  of  the  people,  most 
particularly  interested  in  these  fisheries,  neither  countenanced  nor 
supported  it.  They  had  been  the  first,  and  were  among  the  great- 


237 

est  sufferers  by  the  war,  and  by  the  restrictive  measures  that  pre 
ceded — and  they  were  among  the  most  effective  supporters  of  the 
war,  and  of  the  honour  of  the  nation  in  the  conduct  of  it.  To  have 
sacrificed  their  liberties  in  the  fishery,  would  have  been  a  stain  upon 
the  gratitude,  no  less  than  upon  the  justice,  of  the  American  go 
vernment.  The  instruction  to  accept  a  peace  upon  the  basis  of  the 
state  before  the  war,  was  equally  well  considered.  There  was  no 
time  at  Ghent  when  the  British  plenipotentiaries  would  have  ac 
cepted  it.  The  British  government,  at  that  time,  had  evidently 
taken  a  bias,  from  which  nothing  could  divert  them,  and  which  was 
to  appear  to  the  world  as  if  they  had  gained  something  by  the  war. 
The  state  before  the  war,  upon  all  the  points  of  difference*  was  ac 
tually  offered  to  them,  and  they  rejected  it.  After  commencing 
Ihe  negotiation  with  the  loftiest  pretensions  of  conquest,  they  finally 
settled  down  into  the  determination  merely  to  keep  Moose  Island, 
and  the  fisheries,  to  themselves.  This  was  the  object  of  their 
deepest  solicitude.  Their  efforts  to  obtain  our  acquiescence  in 
their  pretension  that  the  fishing  liberties  had  been  forfeited  by  the 
war,  were  unwearied.  They  presented  it  to  us  in  every  form  that 
ingenuity  could  devise.  It  was  the  first  stumbling  block,  and  the 
last  obstacle  to  the  conclusion  of  the  treaty.  Their  pretension  was 
announced  as  a  preliminary,  at  the  beginning  of  the  first  conference, 
and  their  article  proposing  a  future  negotiation  to  treat  for  a  revival 
of  the  liberty,  was  the  last  point  from  which  they  receded.  But 
the  wisdom  and  the  importance  of  the  instruction  to  the  American 
mission,  to  agree  to  a  peace  on  the  basis  of  the  state  before  the 
war,  was  this  :  it  enabled  them  to  avoid  a  rupture  of  the  negotia 
tion  upon  points  of  minor  importance,  and  upon  which  the  spirit  of 
the  country  might  not  have  been  prepared  to  support  the  govern 
ment.  If  upon  any  of  the  articles  of  the  project  in  discussion,  the 
parties  had  come  to  an  absolute  splitting  point,  as  upon  many  arti 
cles  they  actually  did,  the  American  mission  always  had  the  general 
state  before  the  war,  to  offer  as  an  alternative,  which  would  save 
them  and  the  country  from  the  danger  of  breaking  off  the  negotia 
tion  upon  any  particular  article,  or  any  point  of  less  than  universal 
interest.  With  an  enemy  whose  policy  might  be  really  to  continue 
the  war,  but  to  throw  the  blame  of  it  upon  us,  there  was  a  hazard 
in  adhering  inflexibly  to  any  OHC  point  of  difference.  By  the  pow 
er  of  offering  the  general  state  before  the  war,  if  the  negotiation 
was  to  be  broken  off,  it  would  not  be  in  the  power  of  the  enemy 
to  put  us  in  the  wrong  for  the  rupture  ;  and  with  that  general  prin 
ciple,  always  in  reserve,  we  were  enabled  to  insist  more  persever- 
ingly  upon  every  particular  article  in  discussion. 

The  editorial  article  in  the  Argus  charges  "  the  Secretary"  with 
confounding,  in  his  strictures  (on  the  duplicate  letters,)  the  discus 
sions  which  took  place  before,  and  after,  the  reception  of  the  addi 
tional  instructions,  by  which  means,  it  says,  more  discriminating 
heads  than  Penn's  [the  editor  of  the  Louisville  Public  Advertiser,] 
have  been  deceived. 

30 


23$ 

It  is  not  the  Secretary,  but  Mr.  Russell,  who  confounds 
preceding  and  subsequent  discussions.  The  joint  despatch  of  25th 
December,  1814,  and  Mr.  Russell's  separate  letter  of  the  same 
date,  say  not  a  word  of  the  discussions  prior  to  the  receipt  of  the 
new  instructions.  They  refer  exclusively  to  the  vote  taken  on  the 
29th  of  November,  and  to  the  proposition  actually  made  on  the  1st 
of  December.  Mr,  Russell's  letter  from  Paris,  confounds  together 
the  preceding  and  subsequent  discussions.  His  duplicate  brings  in 
the  cancelled  instructions,  as  violated  by  the  proposal  actually  made, 
on  the  first  of  December,  and  his  publication  in  the  Boston  States 
man  of  27th  June,  affirms,  that  no  vote  was  taken  after  the  receipt 
of  the  new  instructions  ;  and  calls  upon  Mr.  Clay  to  confirm  the 
assertion.  It  is  hoped  that  the  discriminating  heads  will  find  that 
in  these  pages,  the  Secretary  has  been  sufficiently  explicit  in  dis 
tinguishing  between  the  first  and  second  votes,  and  between  the 
discussions  upon  both  of  them. 

The  editorial  paper  states  that  the  article  first  proposed  by  Mr. 
Gallatin,  and  voted  by  the  majority,  was  finally  rejected,  because 
Mr.  Bayard  changed  sides.  This  is  not  altogether  exact.  If  there 
was  any  change  of  sides,  it  was  by  Mr.  Clay.  He  brought  forward 
on  the  7th  of  November,  as  a  substitute  for  Mr.  Gallatin's  article, 
which  had  been  voted  on  the  5th,  the  very  same  proposition  which 
I  had  offered  to  take  instead  of  Mr.  Gallatin's  article,  before  the 
vote  upon  it  had  been  taken,  but  which  Mr.  Clay  had  not  then  been 
prepared  to  accept.  Upon  this  new  proposal  of  Mr.  Clay,  Mr. 
Bayard  agreed,  for  the  sake  of  unanimity,  to  take  it  instead  of  Mr. 
Gallatin's  article  ;  and  so  did  I,  and  so  did  Mr.  Gallatin  himself. 
Mr.  Bayard,  of  course,  afterwards  voted,  on  the  29th  of  Novem= 
ber,  for  the  proposition  which  was  actually  made  on  the  1st  of  De 
cember. 

The  editorial  article  of  the  Argus,  after  stating  that  the  commis 
sioners  at  Ghent  assumed  the  principle,  that  the  right  to  the  fish 
eries  in  British  waters,  on  our  side,  and  the  right  to  navigate  the 
Mississippi,  on  their  side,  secured  by  the  treaty  of  '83,  were  not 
abrogated  by  the  war,  but  continued  in  full  force,  without  any  new 
stipulation  at  the  peace,  observes,  that  "  the  Secretary"  calls  this 
**  the  American  side  of  the  argument"  and  exults,  with  many  thank? 
to  God,  that  it  has  been  sustained  through  subsequent  negotiations, 
and  particularly  in  forming  the  convention  with  Great  Britain  in 
1818.  The  writer  in  the  Argus  appears  to  be  chagrined  at  this  ex 
ultation  of  the  Secretary,  and  exceedingly  anxious  to  deprive  him 
of  his  satisfaction.  But  in  the  first  place,  this  statement  of  the 
principle  assumed  by  the  commissioners  at  Ghent  is  again  not  alto 
gether  exact*  The  principle  assumed  by  them,  was  in  these 
words,  drawn  up  by  Mr.  Clay  : 

"  In  answer  to  the  declaration  made  by  the  British  plenipoten- 
"  tiaries,  respecting  the  fisheries,  the  undersigned,  referring  to  what 
"  passed  in  the  conference  of  the  9th  August,  can  only  state,  that 
'*  they  are  not  authorized  to  bring  into  discussion  any  of  the  righU 


239 

**  or  liberties  which  the  United  States  have  heretofore  enjoyed  m 
*6  relation  thereto.  From  their  nature,  and  from  the  peculiar  cha- 
"  racter  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  by  which  they  were  recognised,  no 
**  further  stipulation  has  been  deemed  necessary  by  the  govern- 
**  ment  of  the  United  States  to  entitle  them  to  the  full  enjoyment  of 
"  all  of  them." 

This  principle,  thus  assumed,  the  Secretary  does  call  the  •Ameri 
can  side  of  the  argument,  and  with  his  thanks  to  God,  that  it  was  as 
sumed,  and  has  since  been  maintained,  against  the  'British  tide  of  the 
argument,  announced  in  the  conference  of  8th  August,  1814,  and 
to  which  this  paragraph  was  the  formal  answer,  the  Secretary  would 
not  less  heartily  add  his  thanks  to  Mr.  Clay,  for  having  made  this 
principle  his  own,  by  proposing  it  to  the  mission,  by  signing  the 
note  in  which  it  was  contained,  and  by  maintaining  it  against  the 
British  plenipotentiaries,  as  long  as  it  was  necessary  for  the  great 
interest  at  stake  upon  it,  that  he  should  maintain  it.  The  Secre 
tary  would  readily  call  it  Mr.  Clay's  side  of  the  argument,  if  he  had 
reason  to  suppose  it  as  unequivocally  that  gentleman's  individual, 
as  he  had  made  it  his  official,  opinion.  The  Secretary  himself, 
not  only  pledged  to  it  his  official  signature,  but  firmly  believed,  and 
still  firmly  believes  it  sound — warranted  by  the  laws  of  nations, 
and  sanctioned  by  the  most  eminent  writers  on  international  juris 
prudence,  as  well  as  by  many  of  the  most  eminent  lawyers  and 
statesmen  of  Great  Britain.  The  inaccuracy  of  the  statement  in 
the  editorial  article  of  the  Argus,  is  in  representing  the  commis 
sioners  as  having  assumed  the  principle,  in  its  application  to  the 
British  right  of  navigating  the  Mississippi,  as  well  as  in  relation  to 
the  fisheries,  and  on  this  inaccuracy  is  founded  the  censure  of  the 
Secretary  for  calling  it  the  American  side  of  the  argument. 

The  commissioners  assumed  the  principle,  only  as  it  was  pre 
sented  by  Mr.  Clay,  and  only  in  relation  to  the  fisheries.  It  was 
emphatically  the  American  side  of  the  argument,  and  still  continued 
so,  when  afterwards  the  British  plenipotentiaries  demanded  a  stipu 
lation  in  the  treaty,  that  British  subjects  should  enjoy  the  right  of 
navigating  the  Mississippi,  and  access  to  it  for  that  purpose  through 
our  territories.  The  American  commissioners  then  said  to  them  : 
If  you  admit  our  principle,  you  need  no  new  stipulation  to  secure 
to  you  this  right ;  we  are  willing,  however,  to  recognise  it  by  a  new 
article,  declaratory  of  both  rights,.  If  you  reject  it,  you  have  no 
foundation  to  claim  a  right  of  navigating  the  Mississippi,  and,  there 
fore,  no  pretence  for  asking  it  by  n  new  stipulation.  The  British 
plenipotentiaries  could  not  extricate  themselves  from  this  dilemma. 
They  said  they  claimed  the  right  of  navigation,  as  an  equivalent  for 
abandoning  their  line  of  boundary  to  the  Mississippi,  and  agreeing 
to  the  49th  parallel  of  latitude.  We  offered  them  to  leave  the 
boundary  as  it  was — which  they  finally  accepted.  Throughout 
the  whole  discussion,  the  principle  assumed  by  the  American  com 
missioners,  was  the  American  side  of  the  argument. 

It  was  still  so  in  the  negotiations  after  the  peace  which  terminated 


240 

in  the  convention  of  1818,  and  remains  the  American  side  of  the 
argument  to  this  day.     When,  in  the  summer  of  1815,  British  arm 
ed  cruisers  warned  all  American  fishing  vessels  on  the  coast  of  No 
va-Scotia  to  a  distance  of  sixty  miles  from  the  shores,  they  very 
significantly  proved  what  the  British  government  had  meant  by  their 
side  of  the  argument,  and  in  entering  upon  the  negotiation,  imme 
diately  afterwards  and  in  consequence  of  that  event,  the  Secretary 
may  be  allowed  to  speak  with  confidence  when  he  says,  that  had  it 
not  been  for  the  principle  assumed  by  the  commissioners  at  Ghent, 
he  could  not  have  taken  the  first  step  in  it — he  could  not  have  al 
leged  a  cause  of  complaint — sixty  miles  was  largely  within  the  ex 
tent  of  exclusive  British  jurisdiction,  as  to  those  fisheries,  if  our  li 
berties  in  them  had  been  abrogated  by  the  war  ;  and  the  American 
minister  in  England  would  have  had  no  more  right  to  complain  of 
this  warning,  or  of  any  exclusion  by  British  cruisers  of  American 
fishing  vessels  from  any  part  of  the  Newfoundland  fisheries,  than  of 
the  seizure  of  an  American  vessel  in  the  port  of  Liverpool  for  a 
manifest  violation  of  the  British  revenue  laws. 

It  was  upon  the  rights  and  liberties,  in  these  fisheries,  as  recog 
nised  in  the  treaty  of  1783,  as  unimpaired  by  the  war  of  1812,  and 
as  unabrogated,  although  no  stipulation  to  confirm  them  had  been 
inserted  in  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  that  the  American  minister  in  Lon 
don  did  complain  of  this  warning  and  interdiction  of  the  American 
fishermen.  He  recurred  immediately  to  the  principle  asserted  by 
the  American  commissioners  at  Ghent,  at  the  proposal  of  Mr.  Clay, 
and  consigned  in  their  note  of  10th  November,  1814.  On  that  he 
rested  the  continued  claim  of  the  United  States  to  all  the  rights  and 
liberties  in  the  fisheries,  recognised  in  the  treaty  of  1783,  and  en 
tered  upon  a  full  discussion  of  the  question  with  the  British  go 
vernment.  The  result  of  that  discussion,  which  was  continued  in 
the  negotiation  of  the  convention  of  1818,  appears  in  the  first  arti 
cle  of  that  convention.  The  editorial  article  in  the  Argus,  says  that 
this  convention  restricts  our  fishing  liberties,  and  says  not  a  word 
about  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi.  The  convention  restricts 
the  liberties  in  some  small  degree ;  but  it  enlarges  them  probably 
in  a  degree  not  less  useful.  It  has  secured  the  whole  coast  fishery 
of  every  part  of  the  British  dominions,  except  within  three  marine 
miles  of  the  shores,  with  the  liberty  of  using  all  the  harbours, 
for  shelter,  for  repairing  damages,  and  for  obtaining  wood  and  wa 
ter.  It  has  secured  the  full  participation  in  the  Labrador  fishery  ; 
the  most  important  part  of  the  whole,  and  that  of  which  it  was  at 
Ghent  peculiarly  the  intention  of  the  British  government  at  all 
events  to  deprive  us.  This  fishery  cannot  be  prosecuted  without 
the  use  of  the  neighbouring  shores,  for  drying  and  curing  the  fish  : 
it  is  chiefly  carried  on  in  boats,  close  into  the  shores,  and  the  loss 
of  it,  even  if  the  rest  had  been  left  unaffected  by  the  same  princi 
ple,  would  have  been  a  loss  of  more  than  half  of  the  whole  interest. 
The  convention  has  also  secured  to  us  the  right  of  drying  and 
curing  fish  on  a  part  of  the  island  of  Newfoundland,  which  had  not 


241 

been  enjoyed  under  the  treaty  of  1783  :  it  has  narrowed  down  the 
pretensions  of  exclusive  territorial  jurisdiction  with  reference  to 
these  fisheries,  to  three  marine  miles  from  the  shores.  Upon  the 
whole,  I  consider  this  interest  as  secured  by  the  convention  of 
1818,  in  a  manner  as  advantageous  as  it  had  been  by  the  treaty  of 
1783  ;  we  have  gained  by  it,  even  of  fishing  liberties,  perhaps  as 
much  as  we  have  lost ;  but  if  not,  we  have  gained  practically  the 
benefit  of  the  principle,  that  our  liberties  in  the  fisheries  recognised 
by  the  treaty  of  1783,  were  not  abrogated  by  the  war  of  1812.  If 
they  had  been,  we  never  should  have  obtained,  without  a  new  war, 
any  portion  of  them  again.  The  error  of  the  editorial  article  ia 
the  Argus,  is  in  putting  out  of  sight  the  difference  between  a  con 
tested  and  an  uncontested  right.  After  the  conclusion  of  the  peace 
of  Ghent,  according  to  the  American  side  of  the  argument,  and  by 
virtue  of  the  principle,  assumed  at  the  proposal  of  Mr.  Clay,  the 
rights  and  liberties  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  in  these 
fisheries,  remained  in  full  force,  as  they  had  been  recognised  by 
the  treaty  of  1783.  According  to  the  British  side  of  the  argument, 
and  to  the  doctrine  of  Mr.  Russell's  Letter  from  Paris,  they  were 
totally  abrogated  by  the  war.  The  letter  says,  in  express  terms, 
that  the  liberty  was  "  entirely  at  an  end  ;"  and,  that  we  were  left 
*'  without  any  title  to  it  whatsoever."  If  this  was  the  real  doctrine  of 
the  minority  of  the  American  mission  at  Ghent,  has  not  the  Secre 
tary  reason  to  exult,  and  to  give  many  thanks  to  God,  that  instead 
of  avowing  it,  they  professed  directly  the  contrary  ?  That  Mr. 
Clay  himself  proposed  to  the  mission,  and  the  mission  at  his  pro 
posal  adopted  the  opposite  principle,  the  American  side  of  the  ar 
gument.  After  the  peace  of  Ghent,  the  right  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States  to  the  fishing  liberties  was  perfect,  but  it  was  contest 
ed.  There  was  a  British  side  of  the  argument,  and  what  we  have 
gained  by  the  convention  of  1818,  has  been  an  adjustment  of  that 
contest,  preserving  essentially  the  whole  interest  that  was  in  dis 
pute.  The  first  article  of  the  convention  is  upon  its  face  the  ad 
justment  of  a  contested  question.  The  documents  of  the  negotia 
tion  prove  how  it  was  adjusted,  and  show  that  we  obtained  the  ad 
justment  by  maintaining  our  principle.  On  the  principle  of  the  let 
ter  from  Paris,  there  was  no  liberty  to  maintain,  no  right  to  assert., 
no  contest  to  adjust :  the  liberty  was  gone,  irretrievably  lost. 

The  editorial  article  says,  that  "  if  the  British  were  to  claim  the 
right  to  navigate  the  Mississippi  to-morrow,  the  Secretary  would 
be  obliged  to  grant  their  claim  valid  or  contradict  his  own  favourite 
principle  !  !"  The  double  notes  of  admiration  annexed  to  this 
closing  period  of  the  editorial  article,  indicate  a  long  cherished  and 
intense  desire  to  fasten  upon  the  Secretary,  in  spite  of  all  that  he 
can  say,  the  deep  crimination  of  the  dreadful  consequences  to 
which  his, favourite  principle  might  yet  lead.  Mr.  Russell,  too,  has 
resorted  to  this  forlorn  hope  of  charge  against  the  Secretary.  My 
reply  to  it  is  this — 


242 

.  That  the  principle  alluded  to  in  its  application  to  our  fishing  li 
berties,  is  my  favourite  principle,  I  admit,  knowing  as  I  do,  that  it 
has  been  the  means  of  saving  them  from  total  extinction.  That  it 
is  my  own  principle,  I  have  perhaps  not  more  the  right  to  say  than 
that  it  was  Mr.  Clay's  own  principle  :  for  it  was  at  his  proposal 
that  it  was  assumed  by  the  American  mission  at  Ghent,  and  the  pa 
ragraph  by  which  it  was  assumed,  was  drawn  up  by  him.  For  all 
possible  consequences  in  relation  to  the  British  right  of  navigating 
the  Mississippi,  which  may  flow  from  the  assumption  of  this  prin 
ciple,  Mr.  Clay  so  far  as  official  acts  and  signatures  can  pledge,  is 
as  responsible  as  I  am. 

But  the  truth  is,  that  the  principle  can  no  longer  be.  applied  to 
the  British  right  of  navigating  the  Mississippi,  because  they  them* 
selves  have  disclaimed  it,  and  thereby  renounced  the  right  to  the 
claim.  The  right  once  disclaimed,  cannot  again  be  resumed.  It 
could  not  be  resumed  even  after  a  tacit  renunciation — a  disclaimer 
is  still  more.  It  was  precisely  because  acquiescence  on  our  part 
in  the  principle  asserted  by  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  in  their 
notification  of  8th  August,  would  have  been  a  surrender  and  tacit 
renunciation  of  the  fishing  liberties,  that  I  deemed  the  counter  no 
tification  on  our  part,  or  a  new  article  indispensable.  But  in  assert 
ing  a  principle  just  and  sound  in  itseif,  in  defence  of  our  own  liber 
ties,  we  are  in  nowise  bound  to  force  it  upon  Great  Britain,  in  support 
of  any  right  of  hers  ;  and  as  she  has  chosen  to  consider  her  right 
to  navigate  the  Mississippi  by  virtue  of  the  8th  article  of  the  treaty 
of  1783,  as  abrogated  by  the  war,  we  are  neither  bound  to  obtrude 
upon  her  that  which  she  disclaims,  nor  to  admit  the  claim,  should 
she  hereafter  be  disposed  to  retract  the  principle. 

But  this  is  not  all ;  the  editorial  article  asks  "  how  can  the  Se 
cretary  consistently  say  that  the  British  abandoned  this  right  in  the 
convention  of  1818,  when  not  a  word  is  said  about  it  in  that  com 
pact?"  It  is  precisely  because  not  a  word  is  said  in  the  compact  about 
it,  that  the  British  have  abandoned  the  right.  By  the  second  arti 
cle  of  the  convention  a  new  boundary  line  is  stipulated,  along  the 
49th  parallel  of  latitude,  which  of  course  cuts  them  off  from  the 
line  to  which  they  were  before  entitled  to  the  Mississippi.  Dis 
claiming  the  right  secured  to  them  by  the  8th  article  of  the  treaty 
of  1783,  the  only  ground  upon  which  they  still  claimed  the  right, 
was  by  virtue  of  the  line  which  brought  them  in  contact  with  the 
river.  At  the  negotiations  of  1807,  and  at  Ghent,  they  declined 
agreeing  to  the  new  line,  unless  wilh  a  reservation  of  the  right  to 
navigate  the  river,  and  of  access  to  it,  through  our  territories. 
They  demanded  the  same  thing  at  the  negotiation  of  the  convention 
of  1818,  and  presented  an  article  to  that  effect.  But  they  finally 
agreed  to  the  new  boundary  line,  without  the  reservation,  and 
thereby  abandoned  their  last  claim  to  the  right  of  navigating  the 
river. 

The  editorial  article  in  the  Argus,  is  sufficient  to  justify  Mr. 
Clay  for  his  assent  to,  and  concurrence  with,  all  the  measures 


243 

agreed  upon  by  the  majority  of  the  Ghent  mission.  His  services 
to  the  nation  are  sufficiently  distinguished  to  enable  him  to  dispense 
with  the  assistance  of  unjust  aspersions  upon  others. 


77.  Mr.  Floyd's  Letter. 

From  the  Richmond  Enquirer  of  27th  August,  1822. 
To  the  Editors  of  the  Enquirer : 

XEW-BERNE,  VIRGINIA,  AUGUST  14,  1822, 

Gentlemen  :  I  am  induced  to  write  to  you,  impelled  by  the  nu 
merous  editorial  remarks  which  have  issued  from  different  parts  of 
the  Union,  relating  to  the  controversy  between  Messrs.  Russell  and 
Adams,  involving  me  in  a  greater  or  less  degree  ;  but  more  parti 
cularly  from  the  unwarrantable  assertions  of  Mr.  Adams  through 
out  his  rejoinder. 

On  entering  into  public  life,  I  formed  a  plan  from  which  I  de 
termined  never  to  depart,  unless  for  the  strongest  reasons ;  and 
I  assure  you,  it  is  with  pain  arid  regret,  I  now  deviate  from  that 
plan.  When  any  thing  occurs  in  my  public  conduct,  if  it  concerns 
myself  alone,  I  have  been  content  to  rest  my  claims  to  justice  upon 
the  decision  of  those  with  whom  I  act,  entirely  regardless  whether 
the  newspapers,  or  reporters  to  newspapers,  either  misunderstand 
me,  misrepresent  me,  or  do  not  hear  me. 

In  the  commencement  of  this  affair,  I  was  not  a  little  surprised 
to  see  the  editorial  remarks  of  the  Weekly  Register  in  concluding 
the  publication  of  the  President's  message  with  the  letters  of  Mr. 
Russell  and  Mr.  Adams,  subjecting  mo.  to  imputations  of  "  elec 
tioneering  views"  and  the  "  getting  up"  this  business  :  my  surprise 
was  not  lessened  to  find  any  thing  in  my  course,  liable  to  such  im 
putations,  as  I  have  always  felt  the  most  perfect  confidence  in  the 
correctness  of  my  course  :  though  1  have  too  high  an  opinion  of 
the  correctness  and  integrity  of  the  Weekly  Register  to  believe 
these  remarks  were  intended  for  any  other  purpose,  than  to  give 
an  honest  opinion  of  the  transaction  as  it  appeared  to  him. 

With  these  feelings,  as  soon  as  I  recovered  from  a  severe  illness, 
under  which  I  was  labouring  when  the  Register  was  received,  I 
wrote  a  statement  of  the  whole  matter,  to  the  editor  of  that  paper, 
whose  independent  republican  course  has  impressed  me  with  the 
most  favourable  sentiments  of  his  rectitude  and  ability  ;  but,  think 
ing  there  would  be  an  end  to  the  affair  very  soon,  and  that  the  op 
portunities  might  offer  elsewhere,  of  doing  myself  justice,  I  yield 
ed  to  the  suggestion  of  a  friend  in  withholding  it  :  nor,  do  I  think 
the  necessity  would  now  exist,  had  the  whole  of  the  debate  been 
published,  which  took  place  in  the  House  of  Representatives  upon 
*hc  adoption  of  Mr,  Fuller*  resolution,  making  the  final  rail  upon 


244 

the  President  for  the  papers  ;  which  now  appears  to  have  been 
done  at  the  instance  of  Mr.  Adams  himself. 

There  is  certainly  something  very  singular  in  this  affair,  that 
Mr.  Adams,  who  has  laboured  with  so  much  zeal  and  perseverance, 
to  impress  the  nation  with  the  belief  that  Mr.  Russell  is  not  correct 
in  his  statements,  should,  nevertheless,  as  zealously  adhere  to  de 
clarations  equally  injurious,  and  unfounded  as  it  regards  myself  5 
to  the  end,  it  is  presumed,  to  justify  his  own  conduct  in  procuring 
Mr.  Fuller  to  make  the  call  which  I  had  desisted  from,  and  which 
it  seems  was  so  desirable  to  him  as  a  mean  of  getting  into  the  news 
papers, — this,  too.  after  Mr.  Russell  had  said  he  knew  nothing  of 
my  intention  of  Making  the  request  I  did  make. 

Mr.  Adams,  I  had  believed,  was  too  well  acquainted  with  eti 
quette,  to  leave  his  lawful  game,  to  send  a  shaft  at  me,  however  he 
might/ee/  towards  me  ;  but,  since  he  has  thought  proper  to  do  so, 
I  must  defend  myself. 

Whatever  a  Secretary  shall  say  of  me,  I  think  it  but  right,  to 
hold  him  responsible  ;  nor  will  I  consent  that  he  shall  ransack  hi§ 
department  to  find  a  clerk  to  prop  his  desires  by  a  certificate.  So 
far  as  it  regards  myself,  I  must  protest  against  the  certificates  of 
clerks,  who  depend  for  their  daily  bread,  upon  the  capricious 
smiles  of  a  Secretary  of  a  Department.  I  do  not  wish  to  be  un 
derstood  as  making  any  remark  upon  Mr.  Adams's  certifying  clerks. 
It  is  possible  they  may  be  respectable,  I  know  nothing  of  them; 
nor,  can  I,  consistent  with  my  own  self-approbation,  know  any  body 
but  Mr.  Adams,  who  1  presume,  having  reliance,  and  regardless  of 
feelings  or  opinions,  boldly  and  confidently,  reiterates  in  his  re 
joinder,  that  Mr.  Russell  procured  me,  to  subserve  his  purposes, 
and  make  the  call  in  the  House  which  I  did  make  ;  which  assertion, 
I  unequivocally  pronounce  to  be  utterly  destitute  of  that  verity 
which  ought  always  to  characterize  assertions  made  to  the  public. 

The  story  is  briefly  this  : 

Last  winter  was  a  year,  at  my  lodgings,  in  conversation  with 
some  of  my  friends,  we  were  discussing  the  advantages  of  the  oc 
cupation  of  the  Oregon,  or  Columbia  river,  the  value  of  the- fur 
trade  of  our  western  rivers,  the  wealth  to  be  derived  from  that 
trade  in  the  Canton  market,  and  the  practicability  of  supplying  the 
valley  of  the  Mississippi  with  the  manufactures  of  China  by  that 
route  ;  when  one  gentleman  observed,  that  the  Mississippi  had 
been  discussed  at  Ghent,  arid  from  the  character  of  the  gentlemen 
engaged  in  it,  there  was  a  strong  probability,  that,  if  I  had  that  cor 
respondence,  I  would  obtain  something,  which  might  be  useful  to 
me.  I  had  then  presented  to  the  House,  my  report  upon  the  occu 
pation  of  that  river,  and  would  have  to  make  an  exposition  of  the 
bill  when  it  came  up  for  discussion.  1  instantly  determined  to  make 
the  call,  as  the  proper  mode  of  getting  the  papers  :  but,  I  soon 
found  my  bill  for  its  occupation,  could  not,  from  the  place  it  held 
in  the  orders  of  the  day,  be  acted  upon  that  session  :  I  then  deter 
mined  to  postpone  the  call  until  the  next  session.  Accordingly,  on 


245 

the  17th  of  January  last,  I  requested  all  the  papers  ;  and  on  the 
23d  of  February,  the  President  answered  that  request,  taking  more 
than  a  month  to  prepare  a  copy. 

Mr.  Adams  says,  after  commenting  upon  this,  that,  "  it  will  be 
observed,  that  nearly  two  months  had  intervened,  between  the 
report  of  the  Ghent  treaty  documents  to  the  House,  and  this  se* 
cond  call,  which  Mr.  Russell  has  admitted  was  made  as  his  sugges 
tion." 

Mr.  Adams  knew  very  well,  the  papers  were  sent  to  the  House 
on  the  23d  of  February,  and  not  only  ordered  to  lie  on  the  table, 
as  he  states,  but  likewise  ordered  to  be  printed:  I  had  not  an  op 
portunity  of  examining  them  until  they  were  printed,  which  would 
of  course  require  some  days.  But  in  that  time,  I  had  received 
intelligence  of  the  afflictions  of  my  family,  and  Mr.  Adams  does 
know,  I  obtained  leave  of  absence  for  the  remainder  of  the  ses 
sion,  believing  it  not  possible  for  me  to  return. 

I  left  this  city,  I  believe,  about  the  13th  of  March,  but  my  fami 
ly  being  restored  to  health,  I  returned  to  Washington,  and  arrived, 
on  Sunday,  the  14th  of  April.  I  went  into  the  House  on  the  15th, 
and  on  the  18th  submitted  the  second  resolution,  calling  specifically 
for  !Ylr.  Russell's  letter  ;  that  resolution  was  adopted  on  the  19th. 

The  reason  of  this  second  call  was,  that,  on  examining  the  pa 
pers,  I  could  not  find  any  thing  I  wanted,  though  I  did  perceive 
from  Mr.  Russell's  letter,  dated  the  25th  of  December,  from  Ghent, 
that  he  intended  to  write  fully,  and  naturally  concluded  he  had 
done  so,  as  he  was  a  public  man,  and  in  the  discharge,  as  I  thought, 
€f  his  duty  ;  and  too,  expected  what  I  wanted  was  contained  in 
that  letter,  to  wit,  touching  the  value  of  the  Mississippi  river. 

I  will  take  no  part  in  the  controversy  between  Mr.  Russell  and 
Mr.  Adams,  nor  would  I  now  have  written,  had  not  Mr.  Adams 
gone  out  of  his  way,  in  endeavouring  to  place  me  in  an  attitude, 
which  he  must  know,  nothing  but  his  injustice  could  have  exhibited 
me  in. 

I  am  almost  as  much  surprised  at  the  memory  of  the  friend  of 
the  National  Intelligencer,  as  at  all  the  rest  of  this  affair  :  he  has 
certainly  reported  to  that  paper  as  far  as  he  went  "  substantially" 
what  happened  in  that  debate  ;  but  the  surprize  is,  that  his  me 
mory  fails  at  the  precise  point  where  my  justification  begins.  I 
recollect  what  was  said,  and  made  these  remarks,  and  nearly  in 
these  words  :  That  I  had  made  the  previous  calls,  and  had  not  re 
newed  it,  as  the  letter  wanted  had  been  specifically  desired,  and 
the  President  already  knew  .the  wishes  of  the  House>  and  might 
send  it  if  he  thought  proper,  as  he  was  the  judge  of  the  propriety 
of  doing  so  ;  I  did  not  think  another  resolution  to  the  same  effect 
would  be  consulting  the  dignity  of  the  House  ;  and  if  the  papers 
would  produce  misunderstanding  and  ill  blood,  between  men  high 
in  office  and  public  esteem,  which  the  President,  who  had  the  pa- 
pers  seemed  to  insinuate,  I  would  not  be  the  means  of  producing 
*haf  evil.  What  I  wanted  was  the  information,  which  I  supposed  the 

511 


246 

papers  to  contain  relative  to  the  value  of  the  Mississippi,  which 
Would,  according  to  my  view  of  the  occupation  of  the  Columbia 
river,  show  the  value  of  the  trade  to  flow  in  that  channel,  which 
was  to  connect  those  two  great  rivers  ;  and  that  there  could  not 
be  any  thing  difficult  to  comprehend  in  that.  That  if  the  President 
would  tell  the  House  such  consequences  would  flow  from  the  com 
munication,  and  at  the  same  time  state,  that  copies  of  the  papers 
would  be  furnished  to  any  gentleman  at  the  Department  of  State, 
who  might  desire  them,  was  a  thing  left  for  him  to  justify  and  to  re 
concile  :  I  wished  myself  to  be  correct,  and  said  this  for  my  own 
justification,  and  to  show  my  own  consistency,  and  not  the  Presi 
dent's. 

I  will  close  these  observations  by  observing  to  you,  that  I  have 
seen  in  your  paper  a  few  days  ago,  the  remarks  contained  in  a 
Charleston  journal.  I  cannot  divine  how  the  writer  knew  I  had 
made  a  motion  to  refer  the  President's  communication  to  my  com 
mittee, before  it  was  read.  I  conclude,  though,  it  is  much  after 
the  disinterestedness  of  the  times,  and  that  a  diplomatic  mission  to 
some  of  the  new  republics,  may  be  the  hoped  reward  of  the  hon 
est  exertions  of  the  writer.  How  was  that  fact  ascertained  ?  there 
is  no  record  showing  whether  the  motion  was  made  before  the  pa 
pers  were  read  or  not — this  minute  fact  is  known  to  the  writer  so 
distant  from  Washington,  who  does  not  even  know  the  part  of  the 
country  I  live  in,  as  he  states  me  to  be  a  member  from  the  west — 
it  may  be  honest  ignorance — I  believe,  though  I  did  make  the  mo 
tion  to  refer  the  papers,  as  soon  as  it  was  ascertained  what  the 
papers  related  to*.  This  is  every  day's  practice,  and  I  have  now 
papers  referred  to  my  committee  which  the  House  never  saw, 
which  contained  information  I  had  sought  through  the  medium  of 
the  House,  as  I  had  done  that,  which  was  to  be  used  when  my  bill 
was  called  up.  I  will  say  more,  that  if  1,  by  any  proper  act, 
could  have  prevented  this  affair,  that  I  would  have  done  so  ;  nor 
will  I,  either  in  public  or  in  private,  refrain  from  commenting  upoa 
the  public  conduct  and  opinions  of  any  public  man,  who  may  be 
thought,  or  may  think  himself  entitled  to  office.  My  opposition 
has  always  been  political,  and  directed  by  the  ideas  I  entertain  of 
the  power  which  gentlemen  may  think  themselves  entitled  to  ex 
ercise,  under  the  constitution  of  the  United  States.  I  look  upon  that 
constitution  as  containing  expressed  grants  of  power,  and  cannot  ap 
prove  any  opposite  opinion. 

I,  a&  a  public  man,  am  willing  to  be  judged  by  this  test,  and  when 
I,  or  others,  cannot  defend  their  opinion,  injustice  to  the  country, 
they  ought  to  retire.  In  iny  public  capacity  I  called  upon  the  ex 
ecutive  branch  of  the  government  for  papers  expressly  relating  to 
a  national  transaction,  and  for  public  use^  and  if  evil  has  resulted, 
<ur  private  letters  been  divulged,  it  cannot  attach  to  me. 

I  am,  sirs,  with  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  FLOYD, 


247 

///.     Mr.  Fullers  Letter. 
From  the  Boston  Patriot  of  4th  September,  1822. 

BOSTON,  3d  SEPTEMBER,  1825, 
I  o  the  Editors  of  the  Boston  Patriot  : 

Gentlemen  :  Having  seen  in  the  Richmond  Enquirer  of  the  27th 
of  August,  a  letter  from  Mr.  Floyd,  of  Virginia,  in  which  he  speaks 
of  the  conduct  of  Mr.  Adams  *'  in  procuring  Mr.  Fuller  to  make 
the  call"  for  Mr.  Russell's  letter  and  Mr.  A.'s  remarks  in  relation 
to  the  Ghent  treaty,  I  am  induced,  with  great  reluctance,  to  ad 
dress  you  a  line  on  that  subject,  for  publication.  My  great  aversion 
to  appear,  without  evident  necessity,  in  the  newspapers,  alone 
withheld  me  from  this  course,  on  observing  that  Mr.  Russell,  in  his 
letter  re-published  in  the  National  Intelligeqcer  on  the  3d  of  July, 
says  Mr.  Adams  "  sought  for  a  member  who  would  consent  to  make 
the  call." — "  To  one  member  from  Massachusetts,  at  least,  he  had 
applied  in  vain,  before  he  finally  succeeded  in  his  object." 

It  was  perfectly  obvious,  on  being  informed  by  the  President's 
rnessage  of  the  4th  of  May,  that  Mr.  Russell's  private  letter  on  the 
Ghe*it  negotiation  was  to  be  seen  by  gentlemen  who  might  call  at 
the  Department  of  State,  that  it  would  be  immediately  published  in 
the  newspapers,  The  message  also  stated  the  wish  of  the  Secre 
tary  of  State,  to  have  the  letter  communicated  to  Congress,  toge 
ther  with  his  remarks,  explanatory  of  its  contents.  This  course 
appeared  to  me  perfectly  fair  ;  and  in  supporting  the  motion,  which 
I  had  submitted  for  the  purpose,  I  assigned,  among  other  reasons, 
the  palpable  unfairness  of  making  the  letter  public,  while  the  an 
swer  was  suppressed.  Several  members,  with  whom  1  conversed, 
concurred  with  me  entirely  in  the  propriety  of  having  both  commu 
nicated  together.  It  seems  to  me,  therefore,  very  singular,  that 
any  censure  could  be  attached  to  Mr.  Adams,  even  had  he,  as  al 
leged,  requested  or  "  procured"  the  call.  I  do,  however,  explicitly 
declare,  that  neither  Mr.  Adams,  nor  any  other  person,  either  re 
quested  or  "procured"  me  to  move  the  call,  or  to  do  any  thing  in  re 
lation  to  it. 

I  regretted  the  absence  of  Mr.  Russell,  and  did  not  know  of  his 
intention  to  depart  from  Washington,  until  he  was  actually  gone  ; 
had  he  been  present,  however,  it  did  not  occur  to  me,  that  he  could 
have  any  objectio.n  to  the  resolution,  and  it  would  not  have  pre 
vented  the  support  I  gave  it. 

Mr.  Floyd's  remarks,  in  opposition  to  the  resolution,  appear  to 
me  more  accurately  stated  in  his  letter,  than  as  reported  in  the  In 
telligencer ;  but  the  addition  which  he  has  supplied,  seems  not  ma 
terial,  in  my  view,  for  his  "  justification." 

Permit  me  to  add,  that  while  1  regret  extremely  the  unfortunate 
occasion,  I  nevertheless  rejoice  in  perceiving  that  it  has  produced 
a  full  development  of  the  import  and  bearings  of  several  important 
points,  which  required  only  to  be  understood,  to  allay  the  jealousies 
so  natural,  but  I  trust  so  unfounded,  between  the  different  sections 
of  our  country,  Your's  respectfully, 

T.  FULLER 


248 

fr.     From  the  National  Intelligencer  of  31^  August t  1822. 

To  the  Editors  of  the  National  Intelligencer. 

In  the  Richmond  Enquirer  of  the  27th  August,  1822,  there  is 
published  a  letter  from  Mr.  Floyd  to  the  editors  of  that  paper,  in 
which  he  says,  that  in  my  Rejoinder  to  Mr.  Russell,  I  boldly  and 
confidently  reiterate,  that  Mr.  Russell  procured  HIM,  to  subserve 
his  purposes,  and  make  the  call  in  the  House,  which  he  did  make  ; 
which  assertion  he  unequivocally  pronounces  to  be  utterly  desti 
tute  of  that  verity  which  ought  always  to  characterize  assertions 
made  to  the  public. 

Whoever  has  read  the  Rejoinder,  thus  referred  to,  must  have 
seen  that  the  name  of  Mr.  Floyd  is  not  so  much  as  mentioned  in  it. 
I  have  invariably  spoken  in  it  of  the  call  of  the  House  of  Represent 
atives,  and  have  mentioned  the  mover  of  the  Resolution,  only  to 
gay,  that  when  Mr.  Russell  left  the  City,  on  the  fifth  of  May,  I  pre 
sumed  he  knew  that  the  call  for  the  letter  would  not  be  renewed 
by  him.  I  have  said  that  the  call  of  the  House  of  the  19th  of 
April,  was  made  at  Mr.  Russell's  instance  or  suggestion,  and  that  it 
was  procured  by  him.  My  vouchers  for  this  assertion,  are  the 
declarations  of  Mr.  Russell  himself  to  Mr.  Brent  and  Mr.  Bailey, 
as  attested  in  their  statements — from  the  latter  of  which  it  appears 
how  the  call  for  Mr.  Russell's  letter  was  procured  by  him,  namely, 
that  Mr  Floyd,  before  offering  the  resolution,  asked  him  for  a  copy 
of  the  letter,  which  Mr.  Russell  declined  giving,  telling  Mr.  Floyd 
that  if  he  wished  a  copy,  he  must  move  a  call  for  it.  Mr.  Floyd 
has  not  denied  this  to  be  fact.  If  he  did  deny  it,  the  question  would 
be  upon  the  verity  of  Mr.  Russell's  assertion,  and  not  of  mine. 
With  the  verity  which  ought  always  to  characterize  assertions 
made  to  the  public,  I  am  as  deeply  impressed  as  I  could  be  by  the 
precept  of  Mr.  Floyd,  or  by  his  example. 

JOHN  QiJINCY  ADAMS, 

Washington,  30th  August,  1822. 


V.    Further  Remarks  upon  Mr.  Floyd's  Letter  to  the  Editors  of  the 
Richmond  Enquirer. 

The  impartial  editors  of  the  Richmond  Enquirer,  in  republish- 
ing  |his  letter  of  mine  to  the  editors  of  the  National  Intelligencer, 
repelling  the  charge  of  Mr.  Floyd,  annexed  to  it  a  note  of  their 
own,  styling  the  distinction  pointed  out  in  my  letter  between  the 
motion  of  Mr.  Floyd,  and  the  call  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
which  resulted  from  it,  a  nice  distinction. 

The  distinction  was  this  :  Mr.  Floyd  had  accused  me  of  having, 
"  regardless  of  feelings  or  opinions,  boldly  and  confidently  reiterat- 
"  ed,  in  my  Rejoinder,  that  Mr.  Russell  had  procured  him,  (Mr, 
<f  Floyd,)  to  subserve  his,  (Mr.  Russell's,)  purposes,  and  make  the 
'  call  in  the  House  which  he  did  make."  And  upon  this  accusa- 


249 

tion,  Mr.  Floyd  had  taken  ground  to  charge  me  with  injustice  to 
him,  and  with  having  asserted  of  him  that  which  was  not  true. 

If  1  had  asserted,  personally,  of  Mr.  Floyd,  that  which  he  im 
puted  to  me,  he  would  have  had  reason  to  take  offence  at  the  as- 
s<  •  ion,  and  to  deny  its  truth  :  but  the  assertion  that  the  call  of  the 
House,  adopted  upon  his  motion,  was  procured  by  Mr.  Russell, 
neither  implied  that  Mr.  Floyd  had  made  himself  subservient  to 
Mr.  Russell's  purposes,  nor  any  thing  at  which  Mr.  Floyd  could 
justly  take  offence.  The  fact  which  I  did  assert,  namely,  that  the 
call  for  Mr.  Russell's  letter  had  been  made  at  his  own  suggestion, 
is  not  denied  by  Mr.  Floyd,  and  is  true.  It  was  only  by  imputing 
ro  me  an  assertion  that  I  had  not  made,  that  Mr.  Floyd  could  make 
himself  ground  to  stand  upon,  in  charging  injustice  to  him,  and  un 
truth  upon  my  assertion. 

My  assertion  was  no  more  saying  that  Mr.  Russell  procured  Mr. 
Floyd  to  subserve  his  purposes,  than  that  he  procured  the  House 
of  Representatives  to  subserve  his  purposes. 

In  stating  the  simple  fact,  that  the  call  of  19th  April,  1822,  was 
moved  for  at  the  suggestion  of  Mr.  Russell,  I  neither  meant,  nor 
thought,  that  Mr.  Floyd  acted  in  subserviency  to  the  purposes  of  Mr. 
Russell.  I  knew  he  had  purposes  of  his  own.  That  so  far  as  they 
were  applicable  to  me,  those  purposes  concurred  well  with  those 
of  Mr.  Russell,  I  did  believe  ;  but  to  Mr.  Floyd,  all  that  I  meant  to 
impute,  was,  the  wish  to  obtain  the  letter,  and  that  the  mode  of  ob 
taining  it  had  been  suggested  to  him  by  Mr.  Russell. 

Mr.  Floyd,  sensitive  as  he  is  to  the  idea  of  a  bare  intimation  that 
a  call  of  the  House,  moved  for  by  him,  had  been  procured  by  Mr. 
Russell,  has,  nevertheless,  not  scrupled  to  say,  in  direct  terms,  that 
I  procured  Mr.  Fuller  to  make  the  call  from  which  he,  Mr.  Floyd, 
had  desisted.  I  do  not  suppose  that  by  this  assertion  Mr.  Floyd 
intended  any  thing  offensive  to  Mr.  Fuller  ;  and  if  he  did  not,  still 
less  reason  could  he  have  for  taking  offence  at  my  asserting,  in 
terms  not  even  personal  to  himself,  nor  using  his  name,  that  a  call 
moved  for  by  him  had  been  procured  by  Mr.  Russell.  He  had  less 
cause  to  use  the  term,  as  applicable  to  Mr.  Fuller,  than  I  had,  as 
applicable  to  him.  His  call  of  19th  April,  had  been  directly  sug 
gested  to  him  by  Mr.  Russell.  After  the  President's  message  to 
the  House,  of  4th  May,  declining  the  communication  of  the  papers, 
unless  they  should  renew  their  call,  it  was  unknown  to  me  for  two 
days,  whether  Mr.  Floyd  would  move  a  renewal  of  the  call,  or  not. 
The  public  curiosity  was  very  highly  excited,  and  many  of  the 
members  of  both  Houses  of  Congress,  whom  I  casually  saw  in  the 
interval,  spoke  to  me  on  the  subject.  I  did  not  conceal  from  any 
one  of  them,  my  wish  that  the  papers  should  be  communicated  to 
the  House  ;  but  I  did  not  ask  any  one  of  them  to  renew  the  call. 
I  gave  them  all  to  understand  that  if  Mr.  Floyd  should  renew  the 
call,  I  hoped  it  would  by  no  one  be  resisted,  on  any  consideration 
of  regurd  for  me.  Every  one  of  them  must  have  known,  that  if 
Mr,  Floyd  did  not  renew  t(he  call,  I  should  be  glad  if  it  were  re- 


newed  by  any  other  member  :  but  I  neither  a^fced  Mr.  Fuller  MM, 
any  other  member  to  renew  it.  I  did  not,  therefore,  procure  Mr, 
Fuller,  to  renew  the  call  and  if  I  can  be  said  to  have  procured  thr 
call,  moved  for  by  him,  it  was  only  by  the  expression  of  a  general 
wish  to  him,  as  to  many  others,  that  the  papers  should  be  commu 
nicated  to  the  House  ;  a  wish  which  had  already  been  made  known 
to  the  House  by  the  message  of  the  President. 

Nothing  offensive  to  Mr.  Floyd  was  intended  by  me  in  my  Re 
joinder,  nor,  if  he  had  been  governed  by  his  own  maxim,  could  he 
have  seen  any  thing  offensive  to  him  in  it.  But  there  is  one  thing, 
at  least,  in  which  there  is,  between  Mr.  Russell  and  Mr.  Floyd,  a 
community  of  purpose  :  that  of  assuming  an  attitude  of  defence,  for 
the  purpose  of  making  an  attack  upon  me. 

Mr.  Floyd,  in  the  publication  here  alluded  to,  has  indulged  him 
self  in  m$ny  reflections  and  insinuations  against  me,  which,  having 
no  relation  to  the  subject  of  this  controversy,  I  deem  it  most  respect 
ful  to  the  public  to  pass  over  in  silence.  I  bear  no  enmity  to  Mr. 
Floyd.  Having  no  personal  acquaintance  with  him,  I  can  have  no 
feelings  towards  him,  other  than  those  excited  by  his  conduct  as  a 
public  man,  which  is  open  to  my  observation  as  mine  is  open  to 

There  had  been  a  time  when,  upon  a  critical  occasion,  in  which 
my  public  conduct  was  not  a  little  involved,  Mr.  Floyd,  still  more 
pnknown  to  me  than  at  present,  had  in  the  House  of  Represent 
atives  taken  a  part  which  had  given  him  claims  to  my  esteem — per 
haps  to  rny  gratitude.  His  copduct  and  opinions  then,  were  doubt 
less  actuated  exclusivejy  by  public  motives,  and  without  reference 
at  all  to  me — yet  I  was  grateful  to  him  for  his  support  of  a  cause 
which  it  had  also  been  my  duty  to  defend  :  the  cause  of  a  hero, 
upon  whose  public  services  was  invoked  the  public  censure  of  his 
country.* 

Whatever  were  his  motives  for  moving  the  first  call  for  the 
Ghent  papers,  or  the  second,  for  Mr.  Russell's  letter,  as  he  thereby 
only  exercised  his  right  as  a  representative  of  the  people,  1  could 
take  no  exception  to  it.  There  were  no  ties  of  private  friendship 
between  Mr.  Floyd  and  me,  which  made  his  case  different  from 
that  of  Mr.  Russell ;  and  if  he  had  received  his  impression  of  the 
transactions  at  Ghent  from  representations  such  as  those  of  Mr, 
Russell's  letter,  he  might,  without  impropriety,  move  a  call  for  the 
papers,  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  the  whole  subject  before  Con 
gress,  and  the  nation,  and  of  exposing  what  he  might  deem  to  be  my 
misconduct  in  the  transaction,  even  though  it  should  have  no  bear 
ing  upon  his  bill  for  the  occupation  of  Columbia  river. 

By  his  publication  in  the  Richmond  Enquirer,  he  seems  desirous 
of  being  understood  to  disclaim  any  other  purpose  in  moving  the 

*  See  the  Debate  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  on  the  Seminole  War, 
February,  1819,  Mr.  Floyd's  Speech. 


251 

calls,  than  to  obtain  information  for  the  support  anil  elucidation  of 
that  bill — yet  his  disclaimer  is  not  explicit. 

At  the  preceding  session  of  Congress,  as  Chairman  of  a  Commit 
tee  of  the  House  Of  Representatives,  he  had  made  a  report  recom 
mending  the  establishment  of  a  territory  at  the  mouth  of  Columbia 
river.  He  now  states,  that  at  that  time,  in  conversation  at  his 
lodgings  with  some  of  his  friends,  upon  the  subject  of  that  report, 
and  upon  the  value  of  the  fur  trade  of  our  western  waters,  the 
wealth  to  be  derived  from  that  trade  in  the  Canton  market,  and 
the  practicability  of  supplying  the  valley  of  the  Mississippi  with  the 
manufactures  of  that  route,  one  gentleman  observed,  that  the  Mis 
sissippi  had  been  discussed  at  Ghent,  and  from  the  characters  of  the 
gentlemen  engaged  in  it,  there  was  a  strong  probability  that  if  Mn 
Floyd  had  that  correspondence,  he  would  obtain  something  which 
might  be  useful  to  him.  Upon  which  he  immediately  determined  to 
make  the  call,  as  a  proper  mode  of  getting  the  papers,  but  after 
wards  determined  to  postpone  the  call  until  the  next  session. 

Mr.  Floyd  has  not  informed  the  public,  who  it  was  that  made  the 
suggestion  to  him,  upon  which  he  determined  to  call  for  the  Ghent 
correspondence  ;  but  it  was  a  person  who  knew  that  the  Mississip 
pi  had  been  discussed  at  Ghent,  and  who,  by  suggesting  this  idea  to 
Mr.  Floyd,  sufficiently  manifested  the  disposition  that  the  corres 
pondence  containing  the  discussion  of  the  Mississippi  at  Ghent, 
should  be  brought  before  the  public. 

Mr.  Floyd's  projected  bill  might  be  an  occasion  to  obtain  this  ob 
ject,  but  where  so  much  was  known  about  the  discussion  of  the  Mis 
sissippi  at  Ghent,  other  purposes,  besides  the  occupation  of  Co 
lumbia  river,  the  fur  trade,  or  the  Canton  market,  were  doubtless 
contemplated  in  stimulating  the  call  for  the  correspondence.  I  do 
not  mean  to  complain  of  such  motives,  if  they  were  partaken  by 
Mr.  Floyd  :  but  while  influenced  by  them,  he  cannot  claim  the 
privilege  of  impartiality,  with  reference  to  this  inquiry,  nor  should 
he  have  appealed  to  the  public,  as  if  he  had  been  injured  by  me, 
for  merely  stating  the  fact,  that  the  call  of  the  House  for  Mr.  Rus 
sell's  letter,  had  been  moved  for  at  the  suggestion  of  Mr.  Russel! 
himself.  By  Mr.  Floyd's  own  showing,  his  first  call  for  the  Ghent- 
papers,  had  been  suggested  to  him.  He  does  not  deny  that  the  call 
for  Mr.  Russell's  letter  was  suggested  to  him,  and  he  might  have 
added,  even,  that  his  coming  forward  in  the  Richmond  Enquirer, 
in  aid  of  Mr.  Russell,  had  been  suggested  to  him  by  the  editors  of 
that  paper.* 

The  motives  now  alleged  by  Mr.  Floyd  for  his  call  of  17th  Ja 
nuary,  1822,  could  not  lead  him  to  the  suspicion,  that  there  would 
be  any  reluctance  in  the  Executive  to  furnish  all  the  documents 
that  could  be  useful  to  him  for  his  Columbia  river  bill ;  nor  does  it 
indeed  appear,  that  on  the  16th  of  January,  1822,  when  he  moved 
the  resolution,  he  suspected,  or  had  reason  to  suspect,  there  would 
be  any  difficulty  in  obtaining  all  the  papers  upon  the  call. 

*  ?ee  the  Richmond  Enquirer  of  2d  August,  1822, 


252 

The  case  seems  to  have  been  different  on  the  next  day.  Mr. 
Floyd  then  proposed  to  strike  out  from  his  resolution,  the  exception 
of  papers,  which,  in  the  opinion  of  the  President,  it  might  be  im 
proper  to  disclose  ;  and  to  the  demand  for  the  correspondence,  had 
added  that  for  the  protocol. 

The  following  observations  of  Mr.  Floyd  in  this  day's  debate, 
[17th  January,  1822,]  explaining  his  reasons  for  wishing  for  the 
whole  correspondence,  without  excepting  even  such  parts  of  it  as  in 
the  President's  opinion  it  might  be  improper  to  disclose,  are  par 
ticularly  remarkable.  He  observed  "  that  the  bill  which  he  had 
"this  day  reported  to  the  House,  contemplated  a  considerable 
"  change  in  the  intercourse  with  the  Indian  tribes,  in  the  West ;  and 
'*  it  appeared  by  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  made  yester- 
"  day,  that  a  great  influence  was  exercised  over  those  tribes  by  our 
"  European  neighbours  in  that  quarter.  The  correspondence  be- 
"  tween  the  commissioners  at  Ghent,  embraced  this  subject  among 
"  others,  and  he  thought  it  was  desirable  that  the  House  should  be 
"  in  possession  of  the  whole  of  it." 

Mr.  Floyd,  in  his  recent  publication,  says  that  when  the  papers 
were  communicated  to  the  House,  in  answer  to  this  call,  on  exam 
ining  them,  he  could  not  find  any  thing  he  wanted ;  but  that  he  ex 
pected  to  find  it  in  the  letter  of  Mr.  Russell,  promised  in  his  sepa 
rate  despatch  of  25th  December,  1814.  He  disclaims  any  inten 
tion,  however,  of  calling  for  a  private  letter,  and  says,  that  if  by 
any  proper  act  he  could  have  prevented  tiiis  affair,  he  would  have 
done  so.  Whether  he  found,  in  Mr.  Russell's  letter,  when  it  was 
communicated,  any  thing  that  he  wanted,  he  has  not  said.  There 
was  much  touching  the  value  of  the  Mississippi  river,  and  much 
about  the  influence  exercised  over  those  Indian  tribes,  by  our  Eu 
ropean  neighbours  in  that  quarter  :  the  bearing  of  it,  or  of  any  part 
of  it,  upon  Mr.  Floyd's  bill  for  the  occupation  of  Columbia  river,  is 
not  so  perceptible  as  its  bearing  upon  the  object  which  he  now 
seems  to  disclaim.  If  he  means  to  be  understood  to  say,  that  he  had 
no  other  motive  in  calling  for  that  letter  than  those  that  he  has  as 
signed  in  his  recent  publication,  I  should  only  regret  that  this  paper,, 
when  obtained,  was  so  little  suited  to  answer  his  expectations,  or  to 
give  him  the  information  of  which  he  was  in  pursuit. 

That  he  had  other  objects  in  view,  it  was  certainly  very  natural 
to  believe,  upon  observing  the  earnestness  with  which  he  pressed  for 
the  "whole  Ghent  correspondence,  without  excepting  such  part  as 
the  President  might  think  it  improper  to  disclose  ;  and  upon  com 
paring  his  observations  in  the  debate  of  17th  January,  with  the 
contents  of  Mr.  Russell's  letter, 

His  resolution  of  19th  April,  called  on  the  President  (if  not  in 
jurious  to  the  public  good)  for  any  letter  or  communication,  which 
may  have  been  received,  from  Jonathan  Russell,  after  the  signature 
of  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  and  written  in  conformity  to  the  indications 
contained  in  his  letter  of  25th  December,  1814.  Although  in  this 
call,  there  is  neither  qualification  of  the  character  of  the  kttcror 


253 

communication,  whether  public  or  private,  of  the  time  when,  nor  of 
the  person  by  whom,  it  might  have  been  received,  and  by  iis  word 
ing  it  seemed  adapted  to  obtain  precisely  such  a  paper  as  Mr.  Rus 
sell  did  produce,  yet,  after  what  has  been  said  by  Mr.  Floyd,  I 
must  infer,  that  in  making  this  call  of  19th  April,  he  did  not  know 
that  Mr.  Russell's  letter  from  Paris  was  a  private  letter.  But  Mr. 
Russell  himself  did  know  it,  and  had,  nevertheless,  repeatedly  ex 
pressed  the  wish,  that  it  might  be  communicated  to  the  House  un 
der  the  first  call  of  17th  January.  In  the  interval  between  the 
first  and  second  call,  he  had  sent  for  his  own  original  of  it  to  Men- 
don — had  received  it,  and  was  immediately  afterwards  prepared 
with  his  duplicate,  not  marked  private,  but  delivered  by  himself  at 
the  Department  of  State  as  a  public  letter. 

Of  Mr.  Floyd's  anxious  wish  first,  that  the  whole  correspond 
ence,  and  secondly,  that  this  letter  of  Mr.  Russell  should  come 
before  Congress,  there  can  assuredly  be  no  question.  With  re 
gard  to  the  correspondence,  my  wish  to  gratify  him  was  the  more 
earnest,  from  the  hope,  that  whatever  might  be  his  motive  for 
the  call,  he  would  be  convinced  there  was  none  in  the  executive 
for  concealment.  As  to  Mr.  Russell's  letter,  before  I  knew  its 
contents,  I  wished  it  might  be  communicated,  for  the  gratification 
both  of  Mr.  Russell  and  Mr.  Floyd;  and  after  I  knew  them,  for  my 
own  vindication  and  that  of  my  colleagues  of  the  majority  at  Ghent, 
against  them. 

Mr.  Floyd,  when  he  says  that  I  procured  Mr.  Fuller  to  make 
the  call  (of  7th  May,)  which  he,  Mr.  Floyd,  had  desisted  from, 
adds,  that  it  seems  this  was  so  desirable  to  me  as  a  mean  of  getting 
into  the  newspapers 

A  biographer  of  Mr.  Fox,  charged  the  physicians  who  attended 
him  in  his  last  illness,  with  having  hastened  his  death  by  adminis 
tering  foxglove  The  physicians  answered  by  declaring  that  they 
had  administered  no  foxglove  to  him  ;  upon  which  the  biographer 
turned  upon  them  with  a  charge  of  having  caused  the  patient's 
death  by  omitting  to  administer  foxglove,  a  remedy  known  to  be 
suited  for  his  disease.  Thus  Mr.  Floyd,  after  moving  a  call  for 
the  Ghent  papers,  without  excepting  even  such  as  the  President 
might  think  it  improper  to  disclose  ;  after  moving  a  second  call  for 
any  letter  or  communication,  unless  injurious  to  the  public  good, 
which  may  have  been  received  from  Mr.  Russell,  on  the  subject, 
after  manifesting  the  utmost  impatience  for  the  papers,  and  not 
sparing  the  excitement  of  suspicions  that  they  would  be  garbled 
or  suppressed  ;  now  turns  upon  me  for  concurring  with  him  in  the 
wish,  that  they  might  all  be  produced,  and  imputes  it  all  to  a  desire 
on  my  part  of  getting  into  the  newspapers. 

It  was  not  into  the  newspapers,  but  before  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives,  that  the  motion  of  Mr.  Fuller  was  adapted  to  bring  me  ; 
and  it  was  at  the  call  of  Mr.  Floyd,  with  thp  concurring  will  and 

,32 


agency  of  Mr.  Russell,  that  I  had  been  summoned  there.  Under 
their  auspices,  I  should  have  been  introduced  like  a  convict  of  the 
inquisition,  with  my  sentence  upon  my  breast.  My  own  wish  was 
lo  appear  with  the  accusation  against  me,  and  my  defence  for  the 
House  to  judge  upon  both.  If  Mr.  Floyd  had  then  reason  to  de 
sist  from  his  call,  I  had  the  more  reason  for  wishing  it  renewed. 

It  was  Mr.  Russell,  too,  who  chose  to  go  into  the  newspapers, 
first  by  publishing  his  triplicate  in  Philadelphia,  and  then  his  reply, 
in  the  Boston  Statesman.  It  was  with  extreme  reluctance  that  I 
followed  him  into  that  field,  and  I  took  the  earliest  opportunity  of 
withdrawing  from  it,  until  called  there  again  by  Mr.  Floyd^ 

If  Mr.  Jefferson  himself,  the  patriarch  of  the  revolution,  the 
immortal  author  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  in  the  re 
tirement  of  private  life,  in  the  last  stage  of  his  illustrious  career, 
surrounded  by  the  gratitude  and  veneration  of  his  country,  justly 
thought  it  not  unworthy  of  himself,  to  meet  twice  in  the  newspa 
pers,  the  accusations  of  a  nameless  "  Native  of  Virginia,"  because 
they  struck  at  his  honour,  I  hope  it  will  be  imputed  to  no  thirst  for 
newspaper  contention,  if  I,  who  in  comparison  with  him  am  but  of 
yesterday,  but  holding  a  public  trust,  for  which  dishonour  is  dis 
qualification,  have  met  in  the  publk  journals,  the  concurring  and 
persevering,  though  variously  pretexted  and  modified,  attacks  of  a 
native  of  Massachusetts  and  a  native  of  Virginia,  both  supported  by 
their  names,  both  acts  of  men,  honoured  themselves  with  public 
confidence,  and  both  tending,  if  not  intended,  to  rob  me  of  that 
good  name*  without  which  to  me  public  trust  would  be  a  reproach 
and  existence  itself  but  a  burthen. 

The  perusal  of  Mr.  Russell's  duplicate  disclosed  to  me  the  mys 
tery  of  ruin  which  had  been  brewing  against  me,  from  the  very  day 
after  the  signature  of  the  treaty  of  Ghent.  It  was  by  representa 
tions  like  those  of  that  letter,  that  the  minds  of  my  fellow  citizens  in 
the  West,  had  for  a  succession  of  years  been  abused  and  ulcerated 
against  me.  That  letter,  indeed,  inculpated  the  whole  majority  of 
the  mission  at  Ghent,  but  subsidiary  slander  had  performed  its  part 
of  pointing  all  the  guilt,  and  fastening  all  the  responsibility  of  the 
crime  upon  me.  It  was  I  who  had  made  the  proposal,  and  Mr. 
Bayard,  after  assenting  to  it,  had  repented.  Such  were  the  tales 
which  had  been  for  years  in  circulation,  and  which  ceased  not  to 
be  told,  until  after  the  publication  of  Mr.  Russell's  letters  and  my 
remarks.  Imputations  of  motives  of  the  deepest  infamy,  were 
connected  with  these  aspersions,  conveyed  in  dark  insinuations, 
and  vouched  for  upon  pretended  ambiguous  givings  out  of  the 
dead.*  Several  of  the  public  journals  from  the  first  call  of  Mr- 
Floyd  for  the  Ghent  papers,  had  caught  enough  of  the  oracular  and 
prophetic  spirit,  to  foresee  that  it  would  result  in  my  irredeemable 
disgrace.  The  House  of  Representatives  had  called  for  Mr.  Rus- 

*  See  the  Aurora,  daily,  for  the  last  \vcck  in  May,  and  the  Richmond  En 
quirer  of  4th  June,  1822, 


255 

sell's  letter  :  Mr.  Russell  himself  had  furnished  it,  to  be  reported 
in  answer  to  the  call.  Curiosity  had  been  potioned  into  eager 
ness  for  a  sight  of  it,  and  of  that  eagerness  Mr.  Floyd  had  ex 
hibited  no  unintelligible  share.  If  his  only  object  was  to  obtain 
information  useful  to  him,  with  reference  to  the  Columbia  River  Bill,, 
the  indexes  to  his  mind,  in  the  debate  of  the  17th  of  January, 
1822,  had  mistaken  their  direction.  If  he  had  another  object,  it 
would  have  been  candid  to  avow  it  then,  and  not  to  disavow  it  now. 

Mr.  Floyd  says  he  will  take  no  part  in  the  controversy  between 
Mr.  Russell  and  me.  I  should  have  had  more  reason  to  thank  Mr. 
Floyd  for  this  profession  of  impartiality,  if  it  comported  better 
either  with  the  general  tenor,  or  the  particular  import,  of  the  pub 
lication  in  which  it  is  contained.  Mr.  Floyd  must  not  be  allowed 
at  once  to  claim  the  rights  of  neutrality  and  to  practise  acts  of  en 
mity.  The  whole  of  his  publication  is  full  of  hostility  to  me,  as 
inveterate  as  it  was  unprovoked  :  a  neutral  flag  imd  a  raking  broad 
side  are  but  indifferent  vouchers  for  each  other.  Mr.  Floyd  now 
comes  forward  in  this  controversy  substantially  as  an  auxiliary  to 
Mr.  Russell,  and  as  a  pretext  for  it ,  he  charges  me  with  an  asser 
tion  which  I  never  made,  that  he  may  take  it  as  personally  offen 
sive  to  himself,  and  attack  me  under  a  colour  of  self-defence.  I 
never  gave  cause  of  offence  to  Mr.  Floyd,  and  if  in  the  Ghent 
papers  for  his  profound  researches  touching  the  value  of  the  Mis 
sissippi  river,  or  the  discussion  of  the  Mississippi  at  Ghent,  he 
could  not  find  any  thing  he  wanted,  the  fault  was  not  mine.  It  is 
usual  to  look  for  information  to  places  where  it  is  likely  to  he  found. 
If  an  astronomer  should  point  his  telescope  to  the  moon  in  search 
of  spots  on  the  face  of  the  sun,  it  would  not  be  surprising  if  he 
could  not  find  any  thing  that  he  wanted. 

Mr.  Floyd  declares  that  he  will  not  either  in  public  or  in  private 
refrain  from  commenting  upon  the  public  conduct  and  opinions  of 
any  public  man,  who  may  be  thought  or  may  think  himself  entitled 
to  office.  He  adds  that  his  opposition  has  always  been  political 
and  directed  by  the  ideas  he  entertains  of  the  power  which  gentle 
men  may  think  themselves  entitled  to  exercise,  under  the  constitution 
of  the  United  States.  If,  by  these  general  expressions,  Mr.  Floyd 
means  any  special  reference  to  me,  1  have  not  the  slightest  objec 
tion  to  his  commenting  upon  my  public  conduct  and  opinions,  whe 
ther  in  public  or  private,  while  he  will  confine  himself  to  that  ex 
act  verity,  of  which  he  has  so  sound  a  theoretic  conception.  1  am 
perfectly  willing  even  that  he  should  take  his  Columbia  River  Bill 
as  the  text  for  a  comment  upon  the  discussion  of  the  Mississippi  at 
Ghent.  But  if  he  comments  upon  the  power  which  /  may  think 
myself  entitled  to  exercise  under  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States 4  from  the  ideas  which  he  entertains  of  it,  I  shall  only  ask 
the  hearers  to  examine  well  the  coincidence  between  my  thoughts 
and  his  ideas  on  the  same  subject.  He  says  he  looks  upon  the 
constitution  of  the  United  States  as  containing  expressed  grants  of 
power,  ai^d  cannot  approve  any  opposite  opinion.  I  hold  no  oppo- 


256 

site  opinion,  and  it'  in  his  comments,  public  or  private,  Mr.  Floyd 
should  impute  to  me  that  I  do,  I  can  only  hope  that  his  hearers  will 
juuge  of  my  opinions  as  they  are,  and  not  according  to  the  ideas  of 
them  entertained  by  Mr.  Floyd. 

Mr.  Floyd  intimates  that  he  shall  hold  me  responsible  not  only 
for  every  thing  that  I  say  of  him,  but  for  every  thing  that  may  be 
said  of  him  by  persons  in  official  stations  under  me.  To  the  tirst 
part  of  this  determination  I  have  no  objection  ;  but  he  will  excuse 
me  from  holding  myself  responsible  to  him  for  what  I  do  not  say  of 
him,  or  for  what  may  be  said  of  him  by  any  other  man.  The  offi 
cial  dependence  of  the  subordinate  officers  of  government,  neither 
in  law,  justice,  or  equity  disqualifies  them  for  the  exercise  of  the 
rights,  nor  absolves  them  from  the  responsibility  of  giving  testimo 
ny  ;  and  the  credit  due  to  that  testimony,  depends  not  upon  official 
station,  but  upon  individual  character.  I  called  upon  Mr.  Brent 
and  Mr.  Bailey  for  statements  of  facts,  material  in  the  controversy 
between  Mr.  Russell  and  me,  and  known  only  to  them.  They  have 
long  held  in  the  Department,  offices  of  great  trust  and  confidence,  of 
fices  for  which  no  other  than  men  of  perfect  integrity  and  unsullied 
reputation  could  be  qualified.  They  are  not  personally  known  to 
Mr.  Floyd  ;  and  I  do  him  the  justice  to  believe,  that  if  they  had 
been,  he  would  have  spared  some  of  his  reflections.  But  they  are 
extensively  known  to  others,  and  wherever  known,  are  respected, 

JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS, 


DAVIS   &  FORCE,  PRINT. 


CONTENTS. 


Page. 

INTRODUCTION.  3 
Debate  in  House  of  Representatives  of  the  U.  S.  17th  January,  1822. 

From  the  National  Intelligencer,....* 4 

CORRESPONDENCE  WHICH  LED  TO  THE  TREATY  OF  GHENT. 

Extracts  from  the  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  Unit 
ed  States,  of  the  16th  and  17th  January,  1822, 13 

Mr.  Floyd's  Resolutions  calling  for  the  Ghent  Correspondence, 13 

Message  from  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  the  House,  transmit 
ting  the  Correspondence....... 21  Feby.  1822,  13 

Report  of  the  Correspondence  to  the  President  of  the  United  States  by 

the  Secretary  of  State, 13 

American  Note  No.  6,  in  answer  to  British  Note  No.  6,..  10 Nov.  1814,  14 

Project  of  a  Treaty  sent  with  the  above  Note, 17 

British  Note,  No.  7, 26  Nov'r  1814,  24 

Project  of  a  Treaty  as  returned  with  this  Note, 26 

American  Note  No.  7,  in  reply  to  British  Note,  No.  7,... 30  Nov'r  1814,  42 

Extract  of  a  Law  of  the  United  States,  passed  July  6, 1812, 43 

.British  Note,  No.  8, 30  Nov'r  1814,  43 

Protocol  of  Conference...... 1  Dec'r  1814,  44 

Protocol  of  Conference, lODec'r  1814,  46 

Protocol  of  Conference, 12  Dec'r  1814,  47 

American  Note,  No.  8, 14  Dec'r  1814,  4fc 

British  Note,  No.  10,  in  answer  to  American  Note,  No.  8,  22  Dec'r  1814,  50 

Protocol  of  Conference, 23  Dec'r  1814,  51 

American  Plenipotentiaries  to  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the 

United  States, 25  Dec'r  1814,  53 

Mr.  Russell  to  the  Secretary  of  State— Extract, 25  Dec'r  1814,  56 

Mr.  Gallatin  to  the  Secretary  of  State, 25^  Dec'r  1814,  5? 

THE  DUPLICATE  LETTERS  AND  THE  REMAKS. 

Extracts  from  the  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  Unit 
ed  States, 18  and  19  April,  1822,  59 

Mr.  Floyd's  Resolution  calling  for  Mr.  Russell's  Letter, 59 

Message  from  the  President  of  the  U.  States  to  the  House,  4  May,  1822,  59 
Report  of  the  Duplicate  to    the  President  of  the  United 

States  by  the  Secretary  of  State, 3  May,  1822,  60 

Extracts  from  the  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives 

of  the  United  States, 6  and  7  May,  1822,  61 

Mr.  Fuller's  Resolution. 

Iracl  fr.'inthe  National  Intelligencer  of  13th  June.  1822. 6l 


CONTENTS. 

Page. 

DebateonMr.  Fuller's  Resolution, »...t 61 

Message  from  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  the  House,  transmit 
ting  the  Duplicate  Letters  and  the  Remarks  of  the  Secretary  of 

State, ?  May,  1822,  63 

Report  to  the  President  of  the  United  States  of  the  Secretary  of  State's 

Remarks, 63 

Mr.  Russell's  Private  Letter  to  the  Scc'y  of  State.   Paris,  ll  Feb'y  1815,  64 

Duplicate,  left  22  April,  1822,  by  Mr.  Russell  at  the  Department  of  State,  C5 

Remarks  thereon,  by  John  Quincy  Adams 3  May,  1822,  8?> 

THE  TRIPLICATE. 

Extracts  from  the  National  Gazette.  Philadelphia,  10  and  25  May, 
1822,.. 114, 118 

Mr.  Russell's  Reply  to  Mr.  Adams.  From  the  Boston  Statesman,  27 
June  1822, „ 119 

Mr.  Adams's  Rejoinder.  From  the  National  Intelligencer  of  17th  July 
and  7th  August,  1822, 138,  158 

Mr.  Brent's  Statement, 155 

Mr,  Bailey's  Statement,.... 156 

FURTHER  STRICTURES   ON   MR.   RUSSELL'S   REPRESENTATIONS    AND 
STATEMENTS!. 

I.     Navigation  of  the  Mississippi — worthless  to  the  British,...* .«.  163 

Tl.  Right  to  the  Fishing  Liberties — Effect  of  War  upon  Treaties — Pecu 
liar  character  of  the  Treaty  of  1783, 182 

'•211.  Fishing  Liberties — Their  Value, 202 

Mr.  Lloyd's  Letter, 210 

Newfoundland  Memorial.  From  Niles's  Register,  of  11  June,  1814,  22 1 
Extracts  from  Colquhoun's   Treatise  on  the  Wealth,  Power,  and 

Resources  of  the  British  Empire, 223 

Conclusion, 229 

APPENDIX. 

I.     Western  Commentaries,. 232 

Extract  from  the  Argus  of  Western  America,  Frankfort,  Kentucky, 

18  July,  1822, 233 

Remarks  on  the  above  Extract, '234 

il.  Mr.  Floyd's  Letter—Richmond  Enquirer  of  2?  August,  1822, 243 

HI.  Mr.  Fuller's  Letter — Boston  Patriot  of  4-  September,  1822, 247 

IV.  Mr.  Adams's  Answer  to  Mr.  Floyd's  Letter — National  Intelligencer 

of  31  August,  1822, 248 

V.  Furthei  Remarks  upon  Mr.  Floyd's  Letter,.,.... 248 


ERRATA. 

I'agc  15,  line  5,  for  "  are ad  y,"  read  "already." 

18,  last  line  but  one,  for  "boundaries,''  read  "  countries.** 

20,  line  24,  for  "  article,"  read  "  article." 

24-,  25,  for  "  ratification,"  read  "ratifications.'' 

25,          15,  for  **  negotiations,"  read  "negotiations." 

•!•(>,  3,  from  the  bottom,  for  "plenipotiaries,"  read  "plerii* 

pntentiaries." 

71,          20,  towards  the  end,  strike  out  "the." 
71,  29,  for  "dependant,"  read  "dependent." 

'77,  6,  between  "  our1'  and  "  Instructions/'  insert  "other,"' 

77,  39,  for  "  were,"  read  "  was." 

78,  32,  at  the  beginning  of  the  lino,  add  "from.'' 
86,  last  line  but  one,  for  "  grant  to,"  read  "grant  or.'* 
o7,  line  37,  before  "negotiation,"  add  "  of  the." 

10P>,  31,  for  "then,"  read  "than." 

117,  24,  for  "only,"  read  "ably." 

121,  3  from  the  bottom,  for  "rating,"  read  "eating." 

121,  2  from  the  bottom,  for  "  oily,"  read  "  rity." 

130,  5,  for  "conference,  read  "  conference." 

133,  10  from  the  bottom,  for  "  proprienty,"  road  M  propriety .9 

147,  21,   at  the  beginning,  strike  out  "in.'* 

152,  12,  for  "oiignal,"  read   "original." 

161,  1C,  for  "them,"  read   "it." 

200,  6,  for  "9th,"  read  "  bth." 

221,  12,  for  <l  24th,"  read  "25th." 

2^7,  4,  after  "opinion,"  !n?f-t    ««  upon.'1'' 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 

AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  5O  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.OO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


SEP    18  li 


LD  21-10Qm-7,'39(402s) 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


